Whos to blame for the crisis in Venezuela Can it be solved through negotiations

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument¶

The article argues that the crisis in Venezuela cannot be resolved through negotiations between the government and opposition, because the conflict is fundamentally a class struggle between the Venezuelan working class and poor on one side, and the domestic oligarchy backed by US imperialism on the other. Jorge Martin contends that liberal-left figures like Gabriel Hetland, by insisting on "shared responsibility" and a negotiated settlement, effectively accept the premises of regime change — that Maduro is illegitimate, that "free and fair elections" are the solution, and that a mythical "democratic opposition" exists independently of the far right. The central thesis is that there are only two real resolutions: a restoration of capitalist rule through imperialist intervention, or a genuine socialist transformation based on workers' control and expropriation of the oligarchy. The attempt to regulate capitalism without breaking it — the Bolivarian project's actual trajectory — has produced an unsustainable stalemate that no amount of negotiation can resolve.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis is rooted in the classical Marxist understanding of the state as an instrument of class rule and the impossibility of reconciling irreconcilable class interests through parliamentary or diplomatic mechanisms. Martin draws on the Marxist critique of reformism — the idea that capitalism can be tamed through regulation, price controls, and state intervention without expropriating the capitalist class. Venezuela is presented as a "textbook case" of capital's response to such regulation: investment strikes, capital flight, hoarding, black marketeering, and sabotage. This echoes Engels's analysis of the limits of the capitalist state and Lenin's insistence that the state cannot be "captured" and used for socialist purposes without being smashed.

The article also deploys a class analysis of the opposition's social base — the middle and upper-middle classes in eastern Caracas — versus Chavismo's roots in the working class, poor peasants, and urban poor. This is not merely descriptive but analytical: the opposition's "irrational hatred" and "primal fear" of the Chavista masses is presented as a class phenomenon, not a political disagreement. The argument sits within the Trotskyist tradition's insistence on the permanent revolution and the impossibility of a "half revolution" — you cannot have a revolution that leaves capitalist property relations intact.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The article was published in March 2019, at the height of the US-backed offensive against the Maduro government. Juan Guaidó had declared himself interim president in January 2019, the US had imposed crippling sanctions, and the threat of military intervention was real — John Bolton had openly demanded the opening of Venezuela's oil industry to private capital. The blackout of March 2019, which the article dissects in detail, was the immediate trigger for Hetland's piece and for the broader propaganda offensive.

Martin situates the crisis in the collapse of oil prices from 2014, the government's policy of deficit financing and foreign debt repayment, and the cumulative effect of US sanctions. But he insists that the root cause is structural: capitalism cannot be regulated, and the Bolivarian government's attempt to do so — while leaving the oligarchy's property intact — inevitably produced economic sabotage and crisis. The conjuncture is therefore one in which the reformist path has exhausted itself, and the choice is between a capitalist restoration (Guaidó's "Plan País") and a socialist offensive.

The article also references the 2016-17 Dominican Republic talks, where the opposition walked out after a deal was reached, and the EU's International Contact Group, which Martin argues was designed to destroy Mexico's independent mediation initiative. These are concrete conjunctural details that ground the theoretical argument in recent political history.

Where the Argument Continues¶

This article is part of a sustained body of analysis by Jorge Martin and the Revolutionary Communist International on Venezuela. The argument continues in several directions:

The critique of the "democratic opposition" myth is developed further in other IDOM articles examining the class composition and political trajectory of the Venezuelan opposition, particularly the role of the National Assembly and Guaidó's faction.
The analysis of the Bolivarian revolution's internal contradictions — the gap between Chávez's socialist rhetoric and the reality of a mixed economy with a dominant private sector — is explored in depth in Martin's longer works on Venezuela and in the RCI's internal discussions.
The question of workers' control and the communal state — what a genuine socialist alternative would look like — is taken up in articles on the El Maizal commune, the Alexis Vive organisation, and other grassroots experiences.
The relationship between the Maduro government and the Chavista base — the erosion of popular support due to concessions to capital — is a recurring theme in IDOM's coverage of Venezuela, particularly in analyses of elections, protests, and the government's economic policy.

The broader Marxist tradition this connects to includes Trotsky's writings on the permanent revolution, Lenin's State and Revolution, and the extensive literature on the limits of reformism in semi-colonial countries.

Connections¶

Gabriel Hetland's articles in The Nation and Jacobin — the immediate polemical target. Hetland represents a broader current of liberal-left analysis that refuses a class approach.
The RCI's own corpus on Venezuela — particularly Jorge Martin's longer analyses of the Bolivarian revolution's trajectory and the debates within the Chavista movement.
Trotsky's The Permanent Revolution — the theoretical foundation for the argument that bourgeois-democratic tasks in semi-colonial countries require a socialist revolution.
Engels's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific — the critique of attempts to regulate capitalism without abolishing it.
The experience of Allende's Chile — a parallel case of a reformist government attempting to regulate capitalism and being destroyed by a US-backed coup, which the article implicitly invokes.
The Dominican Republic talks (2016-17) — a concrete historical example of the opposition's refusal of a negotiated settlement when it seemed within reach.

Key Quotes¶

"The main problem in Hetland's approach is the lack of any discussion of the class nature of this conflict."
"The Maduro government has had a policy of attempting to compromise with and make concessions to the ruling class. This has eroded popular support for the Bolivarian Revolution."
"Capitalism cannot be regulated. If such a thing is attempted, capitalists resort to any measures necessary (legal or illegal) to circumvent such controls, establish systems by which they end up benefiting from them (foreign currency speculation, black marketeering, hoarding) and generally resort to sabotage (investment strikes and capital flight). Venezuela is a textbook case of this."
"There are therefore only two solutions to the untenable status quo Hetland talks about. One resolves the crisis in the benefit of the capitalist class and imperialism. ... The other solution would be based on pursuing genuine revolutionary policies in the benefit of the majority."
"Hetland seems to perceive only a handful of actors in Venezuela: the US, the far-right opposition, a mythical 'democratic' opposition and the Maduro government. However, there is also a chavista revolutionary movement, which is not the same as the government."
"Our liberal friend finds himself firmly in the camp of the Venezuelan opposition and US imperialism. His disagreement with imperialism seems to be just tactical, he does not think that this outcome can or should be achieved through sanctions or military action. He seems to will the ends but not the means."