Skip to content

Washington moves towards regime change in Venezuela

Marxist Theory · 2019-01-13

Core Argument

The article argues that a coordinated imperialist coup d'état is underway in Venezuela, orchestrated by Washington and its regional allies, using the opposition-controlled National Assembly as a constitutional fig leaf. The central claim is that the events of January 2019 — Juan Guaidó's self-declaration as acting president, the OAS's immediate recognition, and Pompeo's explicit calls for the armed forces to abandon Maduro — constitute a deliberate "regime change" operation, not a spontaneous democratic restoration. The article insists that revolutionaries must oppose this coup unconditionally while maintaining independent criticism of the Maduro government's conciliatory policies, which have weakened the popular bulwark against imperialism.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on the classical Marxist understanding of the state as an instrument of class rule, grounded in a monopoly of organised force. The article explicitly rejects liberal-democratic formalism: it notes that Guaidó's claim rests on a body "in contempt" and follows no constitutional precept, but the deeper point is that no government is constituted by declarations alone — it requires the capacity to enforce its will. This reflects Lenin's insistence in State and Revolution that the essence of state power lies in armed bodies of men, not legal procedures.

The piece operates within the Marxist tradition's analysis of Bonapartism and Caesarism, though implicitly. The Venezuelan military is treated not as a neutral arbiter but as a social force with material interests — contracts, control of state enterprises, legal and illegal income — that condition its loyalty. The article thus applies a class analysis to the armed forces, anticipating that sections may defect if they perceive the existing order as doomed.

The argument also draws on the Leninist theory of imperialism as a system of rival capitalist powers competing for spheres of influence. Venezuela is situated within the geopolitical rivalry between US imperialism and Russia, with the latter's military manoeuvres and economic interests providing a counterweight that constrains Washington's options. This is not a moral equivalence between imperialisms but a recognition of interimperialist contradictions.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was published on 13 January 2019, at the peak of the immediate crisis following Maduro's inauguration on 10 January. The conjuncture is defined by several concrete factors:

  • The 2018 election: Maduro won on 20 May 2018 in a vote boycotted by one section of the opposition, providing the formal basis for his claim to legitimacy.
  • The Lima Group: A bloc of conservative Latin American governments (with Mexico as the "honourable exception") coordinated with Washington. Bolsonaro's inauguration in Brazil on 1 January 2019 and Pompeo's attendance signalled the regional alignment.
  • The OAS role: Secretary-General Luis Almagro, a known instigator of the coup, exceeded even Guaidó's own claims by declaring him president via Twitter — a revealing moment of imperialist impatience.
  • The "transition law": The draft legislation being prepared by the National Assembly explicitly aimed to abolish "centralised controls, arbitrary measures of expropriation" and replace them with "a model of freedom and market" — i.e., wholesale privatisation of nationalised industries and reversal of land reform.
  • Russian counterweight: The article notes the presence of Russian Tu-160 nuclear-capable bombers in Venezuela and Russia's economic interests in oil contracts, situating the crisis within the broader US-Russia geopolitical rivalry following Crimea and Syria.

The article's warning about military defection proved prescient: within weeks, sections of the armed forces did begin to waver, though the high command ultimately held. The piece correctly identified that the coup's success depended on splitting the military, and that Washington's strategy combined diplomatic recognition, financial inducements (Pompeo's offer of "recovered funds"), and direct appeals to the officer corps.

Where the Argument Continues

The article leaves several threads that were developed in subsequent IDOM coverage:

  • The nature of the Maduro government: The article states that the IMT "does not support the policies of Maduro's government" and criticises its "class conciliation" and concessions to multinationals, but does not elaborate a full analysis of the Venezuelan state's class character. This was developed in later articles examining the Bonapartist degeneration of Chavismo and the role of the bureaucratic caste.
  • The strategy for workers' self-defence: The article's programmatic demands — expropriation of multinationals, arming of the people, workers' control — are stated but not developed into a concrete transitional programme for the Venezuelan working class. Later IDOM pieces addressed the need for a revolutionary workers' party and the fight for a constituent assembly based on workplaces and communities.
  • The geopolitical dimension: The article notes Russia's role but does not explore the full implications of interimperialist rivalry for the Venezuelan revolution. Subsequent analysis examined how Maduro's government used Russian and Chinese support as a substitute for mobilising the working class.

Connections

  • Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed: The analysis of a Bonapartist regime that has lost revolutionary momentum but retains anti-imperialist credentials echoes Trotsky's analysis of the Stalinist bureaucracy.
  • Lenin's State and Revolution: The insistence that state power rests on armed force, not legal procedure, is a direct application of Lenin's argument.
  • Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: The treatment of the military as a social force with material interests, and the analysis of how a Bonapartist regime can oscillate between classes, is structurally similar.
  • Other IDOM articles on Venezuela: The piece should be read alongside the IMT's broader coverage of the Venezuelan revolution, including analyses of the 2017 constituent assembly, the economic crisis, and the role of the trade unions.
  • Against the Stream episodes: The podcast series produced by the RCI has covered the Venezuelan crisis in depth, particularly the period 2019-2020 when the coup attempt was at its height.

Key Quotes

  1. "The coup attempt can only be successful if it manages to win a significant sector of the Armed Forces or through a military intervention (an effective government is not created by declaring it). Ultimately, any government is based on a monopoly of force to make its decisions effective."

  2. "The military high command has a material interest in maintaining the current constitutional order. The government has given juicy contracts to the military... and has also placed many military officers at the head of state companies, giving them a substantial source of legal and illegal income."

  3. "What this means, in plain language, is massive dismissal of workers from state companies and the entry of private capital into them: a policy of looting which has already proved to be a disaster in all countries where it has been applied."

  4. "We do not suspend our criticism of Maduro's government. We think that its policy (of class conciliation) is not only incapable of resolving the deep economic crisis, but in many respects, represents an important setback for the achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution, by action or omission."

  5. "The healthy feeling of opposition to imperialism is very strong in Venezuela and goes beyond the hardcore that still votes for the PSUV."

  6. "But all this does not mean in any way having an ambiguous or neutral stance in the face of a coup d'état. On the contrary, clearly and emphatically, we strongly oppose it."