Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro called the current post-electoral situation in Venezuela a “cyber coup.”

“We are facing a cyber-fascist and criminal coup attempt,” President Maduro said at the start of the main event celebrating the 87th anniversary of the creation of the Bolivarian National Guard (GNB) on Sunday, August 4, at the headquarters of the Ministry of Defense.

“An imperialist coup d’état, with fascist characteristics, filled with hatred against institutions,” added the president, and praised the exemplary conduct displayed by the GNB when it took to the streets to defend the people and their right to peace.

President Maduro explained that he called the coup attempt “cyber-fascist” “because we are experiencing cyberattacks from all social media platforms to fill Venezuela with hatred and divide it.” As for the fascist label, he said that “its main characteristics are hatred, violence, irrationality, and it is criminal because it is being carried out by a significant group of criminals trained abroad, paid and brought here to attack hospitals, schools, universities, and police stations.”

The president also expressed his condolences to the families of the two GNB agents killed in the violence that occurred after the far-right refused to recognize the results of the presidential election announced by the CNE in the early hours of July 29.

In his opening remarks, President Maduro congratulated the GNB “because you have been and you are the backbone of peace and the defense of the constitutional rights of the people.”

The Venezuelan president said that we are going through a time when the struggle is for peace. “To say peace is to say future, to say peace is to say the right to independence, to self-determination,” he said. He referred to what he said on June 24 at the Carabobo Field on the occasion of the anniversary of the Battle of Carabobo. “This baton of command that I have in my hands will remain in the hands of patriots; this baton of command will never fall into the hands of traitors, oligarchs, fascists, never, I swear to you,” said the commander-in-chief of the Bolivarian National Armed Force at that time.
​
He added that it was President Hugo Chávez who gave constitutional status to the GNB and gave it a Bolivarian character. “It was no longer just going to be the National Guard, but the National Guard of Bolívar, for Bolívar, with Bolívar. A National Guard at the service of a people, of a country,” he said.

​Medals for the wounded

During the ceremony, the president awarded medals to several GNB service-people who were injured during the violence carried out by hooded individuals, allegedly members of the violent cells organized by Vente Venezuela, the political party headed by María Corina Machado.

​One of those who received a medal was Sergeant Major Anderson José Duque Lucena, assigned to Detachment 122 GNB-Lara. Interviewed by Últimas Noticias, he said that his group went on Monday, July 29 to contain a violent protest in the vicinity of the GNB-Carora where about 300 individuals attacked them with fireworks, blunt objects and stones, among other things. “I have a fracture in my right ankle and complicated polytrauma in my right shoulder,” he said.

First Sergeant Carlos Olivero Machado, assigned to the 43rd District Capital Command, also recounted how he was injured. “We were injured while defending kilometer zero of the Pan-American Caracas-Los Teques highway. I have a wound in my fibula and a fracture,” he said.
​
At the GNB anniversary event, several GNB officials were promoted, including Ministers Ramón Velásquez Araguayan (Transport) and Jorge Eliezer Márquez Monsalve (Electric Energy).

This article was produced by Orinoco Tribune.

For many indigenous peoples of Venezuela, the socialist commune is not new at all but resonates with existing and previous social practices that include communal land tenure and self-governance. That is the case for the Pumé community called “Coporo Indígena,” located in upper Apure just outside Biruaca. Due to its small population, this community is registered as a communal council rather than as a commune.

The history of this Pumé settlement, which takes its name from the coporo river fish, parallels that of many Indigenous communities who have been systematically displaced from their land and made victims of structural violence. Although the Bolivarian Revolution brought important reforms and programs that favored the Pumé and other Indigenous peoples of Venezuela, many injustices still persist, awaiting resolution.

The men and women living in the Coporo Indígena community formerly lived in San José de Capanaparo, near the Colombian border. However, in 1980, the family of cacique Mario García settled in the territory of what is now known as Coporo Indígena. Little by little they built houses, wells, and cleared 30 acres of land for growing corn, beans, topocho [small plantain], and planted a diverse medicinal garden.

Last year, the community comprised 32 families. However, in January 2024, a new group of displaced families arrived on foot from San José de Capanaparo, having fled that region due to violence from irregular groups crossing the border. Today, Coporo Indígena is home to some 50 families who maintain their language and many of their traditions. In the following testimonies, three spokespeople discuss the community’s organization and economy, along with the impact of the U.S. blockade on their daily lives.

SHORT HISTORY OF A PUMÉ COMMUNITY

Mario García: Criollos [non-indigenous people] often ask us where we come from and we always tell them that we are from here, from this land that you and I call Apure. We were here before the invaders came; this was our home before they took our land and our wealth by violent means; we lived here before they tried to strip us of our culture and our cosmovision.

The colonial system attempted to snatch life away from the Pumé people. Still, we have preserved and nurtured the cornerstones of our culture: our belief system, which is integrated with the earth; our organizational structure, which is centered on the community; our crafts, which were passed on to us by the elders; and our language, which is key to the integrity of our people.

I was born in a Pumé community in San José de Capanaparo. In fact, everyone living in Coporo Indígena hails from Capanaparo. Some of us, myself included, came here in 1980, while others arrived just a few months ago. They are the victims of irregular groups of Colombian origin that penetrated the community and forced 17 families to quietly flee their homes on the night of December 24, 2023.

COMMUNAL ORGANIZATION

Mario García: Maintaining a close-knit community in which the land is not individually held but instead sustains everyone who works is integral to the Pumé way of life. Thus, the commune is nothing new for us. In Coporo Indígena, we are organized as a communal council because we are a small Indigenous island in a territory settled by criollos, but we live communally.

Why do I say this? The 30 hectares of land we inhabit are cared for collectively: anyone who works the land will benefit from it, and nobody in our community will go to bed hungry if the land yields its bounty.

Years ago, when this tract of land was assigned to us, the National Land Institute [INTI] wanted to divide it among the families that lived here then. We didn’t like the idea of dividing the land, so we had to confront the authorities. Fortunately, we succeeded, so the only fence that you will see now is the wire around the perimeter of the Coporo Indígena tract of land. We know that fences not only divide the land, but they also divide the community.

In a Pumé community, problems are discussed in meetings and we develop a plan to solve them together. This is what Chávez talked about, but it’s nothing new for us. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we don’t need outside help. In fact, we often do. For example, as a community, we have determined that our priority right now is access to water because our communal council grew overnight when our brothers and sisters from San José de Capanaparo arrived here in January. We need water pumps, which will allow us to increase our production, and we have requested government support to make that happen.

Our ancestors lived in tightly-knit communities or communes, and this kind of organization continues to define our way of life. You may ask, why stick to the old ways? Because we are here to preserve our culture, our language, and our way of life… and there is only one way for this to happen: sharing what we have while living in harmony with nature. This is something that criollo culture has yet to learn.

But we are not only a people of the past. We live in modernity, and that’s why we demand attention from the government: we too need homes, electricity, water, and roads as well as healthcare and education. We don’t shy away from modernity, but we don’t embrace it blindfolded.

Gladys García: In criollo society, what is yours is yours, and what is mine is mine and there’s no two ways about it. In the criollo world, you may not know your neighbor and you aren’t likely to think much about the land where you stand, about nature, about the earth. In Pumé society, we all work together and share the little that we have: shelter, water, and other goods, while the care of the community and the land is everybody’s task.

That’s why, when our brothers and sisters from San José de Capanaparo arrived here in January, we opened our doors to them. What do we expect from them? That they work like us and live like us.

ECONOMY

Mario García: The economic base of Coporo Indígena is farming, while back at home [San José de Capanaparo], the economic base is hunting, fishing, but also subsistence farming as well as craftwork. However, subsistence farming practices have been historically threatened by those who want to commodify the land.

Our agricultural production at Coporo Indígena is hybrid, joining ancestral practices with modern ones. We don’t shy away from mechanization but we also deploy the knowledge passed on by our parents and grandparents. While we are set on preserving our culture, we are not a relic of the past: we aim to technify our production and improve and modernize our living conditions.

We need farm equipment, better roads, and pumps to get water out of the wells. The latter is actually an urgent matter, particularly since a group of displaced families arrived in our community earlier this year. As it is right now, we have enough water to cook and drink, but we don’t have enough water to maintain our production. As an organized community, we are working so that the Consejo Federal de Gobierno [Venezuelan state institution that funds communal projects] finances the digging of new wells and the purchase of pumps.

We have 30 hectares of collective land in Coporo Indígena. Of those, ten are designated for corn production. At the moment, our corn yield is about 1,500 kilos per hectare, but we can bump that up to 4,500 by improving the wells. We could also grow ten hectares of beans with an estimated yield of 1,500 kilos per hectare, amounting to 15,000 kilos per crop. However, this will only be possible if we can solve the water supply issues that we face.

Gladys García: We make many of our own utensils from “tapara” [calabash], from plates to spoons to colanders. We weave our hats and slings to carry the babies out of macanilla [a type of palm] shoots. We make toys such as the trompo [top] and the bobotó [a ball]. We learned the craft from our mothers and grandmothers, and cherish it dearly.

Much of the artisanal production that we sell is made with the “cogollo de macanilla,” which is a bush similar to the coconut palm that grows in San José de Capanaparo. We weave these goods for ourselves, but we also sell some of them so that we can buy rice and sugar.

Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to get “cogollo de macanilla” lately, but we hope to be able to get it soon: when we have stock, we can make three hats in one day, and if we sell them at 5 USD per piece, that’s 15 dollars coming into our household!

Daniel García: In San José de Capanaparo we grew yuca and made our own casabe, we also grew topocho, ñame, and ocumo [root vegetables]. The land there is communal; which means that nobody from the community is kept from working the land.

The land in Capanaparo is less generous than this one, so we worked it for one year at a time and then let it rest. However, in Capanaparo we could hunt and fish all year round. We hunted with bows and arrows and we caught the babas [small caiman] with a harpoon. At night you could hunt them on the side of the river when they are sleepy.

IMPACT OF THE BLOCKADE

Mario García: Here, in Coporo Indígena, we didn’t go hungry even during the worst of the blockade: we make auyama [pumpkin] pancakes and yuca arepas; we also have a conuco [small, diversified plot of land] where we grow corn, beans, and topocho; and we have free-range chickens that lay the best eggs; so our stomachs didn’t go growling. Sometimes we were short on coffee or sugar, but we were able to sustain our community on our own. The blockade helped us re-learn one lesson: we have the tools to break with the outside world if need be.

Our way of doing things is like the bee: we ensure our colony’s wellbeing today and we save part of our production for the winter [rainy season]. Then, whatever is left gets sold or exchanged for whatever we may need.

Daniel García: In San José de Capanaparo we never went hungry: we grew some of our own food, we hunted chigüires [large rodents] and caimans, and the river was there to gift us as much fish as we could eat. What did we need from the outside? Sugar, salt, and little else.

However, we have seen many problems emerge with the blockade and the crisis: in recent years, irregular armed groups have grown in Capanaparo. The phenomenon is an extension of the war in Colombia: I think the economic pressures endured by Venezuela offered good conditions for the expansion of these groups.

This situation is what drove 17 families to leave our homes in San José de Capanaparo on Christmas Eve [2023]. The pressure to join the irregular groups was such that we had to quietly leave town on foot in the middle of the night: we left our houses, our pigs and chickens, everything we had, and walked away! A month later we arrived here, where we were received with open arms.

Gladys García: We have seen the deterioration of our community’s health over the past few years. Now it’s hard for us to get medicines, and it is also hard to get to the hospital. When you go to the doctor, all they can do is give you a piece of paper with the medication you need written on it… but how is one to pay for it?

Before the blockade, things were very different: we were able to get medicines, there were efforts to map the health situation of our community, and pregnant women got vitamin supplements and monitoring.
However, we are not as dependent as other communities. We have our shaman, who visits us regularly while Señora Prudencia, our midwife, brings our children to this world in the Pumé way.

Mario García: The impact of the crisis is indeed noticeable in our community. However, we have something that criollo culture doesn’t have: shamans. Shamans are our maximum authority; they teach us how to live in harmony with the earth and can cure many maladies with leaves and flowers, or with chants and ceremonies.
​
That doesn’t mean that we are against what some call “scientific medicine.” Some ailments can be cured by our shaman, while others require conventional treatment.

THE BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION AND THE INDIGENOUS STRUGGLE

Mario García: Before Chávez came to power, state violence against us [Indigenous people] was part of everyday life: the displacement of Indigenous communities with the participation of police and military forces, who were at the service of the terratenientes [large-scale landowners], was not uncommon in Apure.

The Marcos Pérez Jimenez dictatorship [1953-58] was particularly bloody. Back then, in Las Piñas [Guachara municipality, Apure], more than a thousand people were killed. The massacres didn’t end there, however, although they de-intensified. In 1996 or 1997, a large Indigenous family was massacred by the state’s repressive forces. The police and the armed forces have never been our friends.

The revolutionary process saw an important reduction in violence against us [Indigenous peoples]. Additionally, we saw advances in political representation at the national level. Finally, the Bolivarian Process was important in the preservation of our ethnolinguistic practices: in school, many Indigenous kids around the country are learning how to read and write in their mother tongue, and many communities have direct control over the schools in their territory, although this happens with Ministry of Education oversight.

That is the case with the bilingual school in our territory: the Paula Ruiz School has been under our purview since 2015, when we requested that it be transferred from the Ministry of Education to the community.

With the Bolivarian Process, access to higher education also widened for Indigenous people like myself. When I was a kid growing up in San José de Capanaparo, we could only study through 6th grade. If we wanted to go on studying, the only option was a Catholic school. My family, like most Indigenous families, couldn’t pay the fees that the priests demanded, so Indigenous kids saw their education truncated.

When Chávez came into power, I was able to graduate from high school via Misión Ribas. From there I went to Misión Cultura, where I got a degree in education. This would not have been possible without the Bolivarian Process.

We have seen many advances over the past 25 years, but the historical debt of criollo society with us hasn’t been settled: many serious socio-economic problems, from housing to healthcare, persist, while structural violence is still present.
​
There is a long road to go: we have many challenges, from historical injustices to the U.S. blockade. We need to be heard, but we stand with President Nicolás Maduro and with the Bolivarian Revolution.

In his address to COP27, the Venezuelan president highlighted that capitalism was responsible for the environmental crisis and urged the body to move forward with climate financing

​The 27th iteration of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP27, began on Sunday, November 6 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. The gathering has brought together over 45,000 people from 196 countries, including 120 heads of state. Participants will have until November 18 to build serious, global solutions to address the pressing climate crisis in all of its dimensions.

On November 8, the president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, addressed the gathering. Maduro did not participate in the last several COP summits, and this year’s participation comes amid a moment of warming relations between his government and countries of the Global North and the region of Latin America and the Caribbean. Until recently, many countries recognized the former deputy Juan Guaidó as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. However, in the past year, many of the recently elected progressive governments in Latin America have resumed formal relations with the legitimate government of Venezuela, and Global North countries have resumed relations amid the global energy crisis.

When he arrived at COP27 on Sunday, November 6, Maduro had announced that he would seek to propose a South American summit in defense of the Amazon with Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Brazilian president-elect Lula da Silva. The Venezuelan president’s speech highlighted the importance of recognizing that capitalism and its logic of overproduction and exploitation is the primary root cause behind the environmental crisis. He also called on those present to take urgent action on climate financing in order to support and protect those who are most impacted by climate change and are overwhelmingly those who have contributed the least to carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses. Maduro also highlighted the importance of preserving the Amazon rainforest and the Indigenous peoples who have for centuries inhabited and protected it.

Read the entire address of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the 27th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change below:

The terrible environmental imbalances that today dramatically affect life throughout the planet seem to indicate that Climate Change -as it’s called with incoherent euphemism- is an irreversible fact.

Feared by many and denied by the elites, the dystopian scenario of which the scientific community, some world leaders and almost all social movements warned early on, has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The greatest environmental crisis since life has existed. The climate crisis is an unavoidable reality that can only be confronted with concrete, urgent, and immediate actions.

It is doubly painful to have to admit, moreover, that the dimension of this crisis does not take us by surprise. Since the beginning of environmental diplomacy, there was sufficient data to declare an early emergency and act accordingly. That was three decades ago.

With the signing of the historic Kyoto agreement in 1997, an important consensus was reached on the reduction of the carbon footprint by industrialized and developing countries, which until 2009 yielded significant, albeit insufficient, results.

The Paris Agreement also aimed to improve the mechanisms that oblige developed countries to reduce their impact on global warming and, above all, finally gave a binding character to the contributions of science in this regard. But there were also painful stalemates and ruptures, such as those that occurred in 2009 in Copenhagen, where the unwillingness of the denialist elites to move forward at the right pace and in the right direction, that of life, became evident.

We still remember the police repression in the streets against the environmental movements and the corporate bureaucratic plots that were created since then to avoid us reaching agreements and firm commitments which would allow us all to build a sensible and relevant solution to the climate situation that is already in a critical phase.

President:

We have lost much more than time: every hour, every month, every year of inaction, of hesitation, of indolence, translates today into destroyed ecosystems, extinct species and the deterioration of the conditions of a planet that had given us everything with generosity but that today begins to take a huge toll for the abuses committed.

Recognizing the failures of civilization in this area is the beginning of a radical rectification. Yesterday we were threatened by climate change, but today we are faced with a fatal destiny which is the complete collapse of the ecosystem. The most current projections say it: if we continue at this self-destructive pace, the planet will be uninhabitable in 30 or 40 years.

We know that this climate crisis has and will have definitive consequences on the planet, forcing us to modify our consumerist model of life.

The latest UN report on climate change, in which 14,000 scientists from around the world participated, warned that if greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide, methane, and iron oxide are not reduced by 50%, the damage will be irreversible in just eight years. That is, by 2030 there will be no turning back from what we are experiencing: storms, hurricanes, rains, extreme cold, and heat that unexpectedly change the conditions of life and even more, compromise our existence. Global warming is wiping out species on earth and this seems to be unstoppable.

To mention an example: extreme heat could extinguish bees and if there are no bees the pollination cycle is interrupted, if there is no pollination plants do not reproduce and this would decrease oxygen.

Let’s look at the data:

– The average annual global temperature in the last 100 years rose 0.8°C and is expected to exceed 1.7°C for the next five years.

– Greenhouse gasses are at the highest levels in human history. This level, which had fallen in 2020, when the world was quarantined by the pandemic. In 2021, with the industrial and commercial reactivation, the level surpassed the record of 2019 which was approximately 12% higher than in 2010 and 54% higher than in 1990. In 32 years there was an increase that should have happened over centuries.

– Phenomena such as droughts and extreme rainfall are increasing accordingly and in a disorderly way: about 80% of natural disasters between 2001 and 2021 were related either to droughts or floods.

– According to estimates by climate experts, by 2050 the Arctic Ocean will be virtually free of sea ice for the first time in history and with a temperature rise of 2°C 99% of the world’s corals could be lost.

– Similarly, sea levels have risen about 23 centimeters since 1880, and almost half of that took place in the last 25 years. Each year, the sea rises another 3.4 millimeters.

– That rise is causing freshwater to become salty, compromising the water resources on which millions of people depend.

– Rising temperatures can attract deadly pathogens to freshwater sources and make it unsafe for human consumption.

Without a doubt, human civilization is responsible for the serious consequences that the planet is experiencing today. However, this statement is incomplete and would be hypocritical if it is not detailed that this civilization is profoundly unequal. It is made up of countries that have been indiscriminately exploiting the planet’s natural resources for two centuries, while others barely have enough to feed themselves and persist under a pre-industrial mode of production.

Venezuela is responsible for less than 0.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the Venezuelan people must pay the consequences of an imbalance caused by the major Western economies, who have polluted and continue to pollute the planet for the benefit of a few.

Existence as we know it has been forever disrupted to the detriment of all living species on the planet. The rate of extinction of the species that today make up the complex organism of biodiversity is accelerating and extending alarmingly, just as Commander Fidel Castro Ruz warned in that famous call of conscience he made 30 years ago at the Rio Summit in Brazil. I quote: “An important biological species is at risk of disappearing due to the rapid and progressive liquidation of its natural conditions of life: man,” and prophetically warning the following: “Tomorrow it will be too late to do what we should have done a long time ago”. He also pointed out that savage and predatory capitalism is largely responsible for the threat against nature.

It will be useless, as it has been until today, any effort we undertake to alleviate the consequences of this environmental disaster, if we do not have the courage to recognize that this and this alone is the cause of the coming disaster.

In 2009 in Copenhagen, Commander Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías had the courage to say it plainly and directly. Allow me to bring some of his ideas here today. I quote: “What is the cause of climate change? The cause is the dream of seeking happiness through material accumulation and endless progress, using techniques with which all the earth’s resources can be exploited in an unlimited way” (…) “Let us not change the climate, let us change the system” he declared.

President,

The imbalance and the environmental crisis created in nature are comparable to the conditions of inequality and injustice that capitalism has created against humanity. A system that normalizes exploitation among human beings has no ethical conditions to respect other forms of existence. Capitalism sees resources where other cultures see life and the sacred. It therefore feels entitled to possess and destroy everything in its path.

President, fellow dignitaries: It is necessary to reach real and effective agreements in the face of the structural problem but we must also design today, right now, a concrete agenda of actions to protect the vulnerable populations of the world, who suffer the most from the consequences of this environmental tragedy: famine, the loss of millions of homes, the proliferation of multiple diseases and the human displacements that have been causing desertification and the sinking of entire fertile territories.

Humanity cannot continue to be orphaned. It is necessary to materialize, without delays or bureaucratic obstacles, the fund for climate losses and damages that we have been talking about for some years now in previous summits. We must work on this urgent proposal down to the last detail. Let us fine-tune the mechanisms so that the financial assistance is direct, fair, timely and expeditious, so that compensation for environmental damage reaches the most affected peoples.

Any agreement reached today must attack the root of the problem and give attention above all to the most vulnerable.

It is necessary to take into account the singularities of the countries that make up the globalized world and to assign, according to their responsibility in the destruction of the environment, concrete tasks to save humanity and alleviate the effects of ecological imbalance.

The abysmal inequality between the countries of the so-called first world and the rest has increased and deepened in recent decades at the same pace as environmental destruction. There is a connection between the environmental crisis and global poverty. The indiscriminate exploitation of renewable and non-renewable resources, in addition to producing environmental misery, is responsible for social misery on a planetary scale, since it exacerbates it. This cannot be ignored at the moment of creating drastic measures and effective plans to correct and regulate the activities of civilization for the future.

Finally, we advocate as a sovereign country for the protection of the Amazon: as the last great jungle of this planet where all the biodiversity, water resources and the living memory of the native peoples, who never in their millennia of existence have left an irreparable mark on that sacred soil.

On the contrary, it is the native peoples who teach us that nature is not a separate and inanimate being, separated from human beings, but our totality: we are the physical and spiritual extension of nature and nature is ours.

The ancestral and native cultures of an entire continent, from the Sioux of North America to the Yanomami of the South, conceived the earth as a living being that feels and thinks like us. Let us wake up to this truth and get out of the anthropocentric arrogance that prevents us from seeing the sacredness of the world.

Venezuelan men and women are not known for being pessimists. We have with us a tireless spirit of struggle and an immense love for life that elevates us to think of a new humanity, from a new spirituality. A humanity reconciled with nature, reconciled with itself and reconciled with the future.

As the Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan said: “There are no more passengers on this spaceship called Earth: we are all crew members”. I know that there is not a man, nor a woman who is willing to see this beautiful adventure that can be the new humanity eclipsed. Nor will we sit back and watch the end of days.

Let the world count on these hard-working and hopeful people, ready to join forces with everyone to save the planet. The illusion of infinite development is over: let us now put a limit to the damage caused to Mother Nature.

Chairman, brothers and sisters:

The time for speeches is over, as well as the time for lamentations.

There is only one present to act radically and with certainty in favor of another possible world and a true life.

And even if the present is an instant in the eyes of eternity, it will be enough if there is a will to live.
​
Thank you very much.

“Talk to a Cuban. Talk to a Venezuelan,” reactionaries respond in full confidence. These deflections prevent the public from seriously engaging in dialogues about socialism. Detractors assert that the Cuban and Venezuelan experiences demonstrate the crippling failures of socialism and the inherent superiority of capitalism. Socialism could never produce a successful society, they say, as evidenced by the economic turmoil and repressive politics of Cuba and Venezuela.

And it’s not just Republicans that fear monger about socialism; Democrats concur. Biden and Bill De Blasio have accused Trump of behaving like a socialist. Talks about the dangers of populism and fostering a cult of personality permeate the liberal Twittesphere. Even supposed democratic socialists distance themselves from these Third-World experiments.

When someone says, “talk to a Cuban, talk to a Venezuelan,” they weaponize identity politics for the ruling class' benefit and prioritize the lived experiences of exiles in the United States over that of others. It is seemingly a full-fledged argument. You cannot talk about something you have not lived through. You must seek guidance from someone who has. But, then, what about the Venezuelan socialist? What about the Cuban communist? What is the experience of those who align themselves with the revolutionary cause of these governments?

While I cannot speak for anyone but myself, I attempt to answer these personal questions – with a little help from my comrade Carlos L. Garrido of Midwestern Marx – a US-based digital journal devoted to bridging the divide between the modern left and the working class. Carlos services Midwestern Marx’s 100,000 readers as a writer, editor, and podcast host for the journal’s YouTube channel. He is a Cuban-American Marxist and Graduate Teaching Assistant in Philosophy at Southern Illinois University. Carlos and I share similar tales: we’re both Latino socialists living in the US since childhood. Carlos’ family brought him to the US at age 3, in the year 2000; mine brought me at age 8, in the year 2003. 

Carlos was born in Havana, Cuba to a family of academics with socialist orientation. Upon their arrival to the US they remained largely politically uninvolved. Consequently, Carlos was not brought up around Marxist thought. The philosopher characterizes his upbringing as rather apolitical, albeit of his family’s known anti-imperialist and anti-establishment sentiments. Yet, when he listened to Los Aldeanos’ protest raps against Fidel Castro, Carlos’ family met him opposition: “Every time I would put it on, my parents would talk about how stupid it was.”

It took Carlos’ own philosophical radicalization to realize the leftist legacy his family had imprinted in Cuba. Specifically, his maternal grandfather was a communist seminarian active in the first youth squadrons sent after the revolution to build schools and clinics in the poor countryside. As the multi-hyphenated man put it, “until the point of his death my grandfather was a communist.” He explains, “I really started finding out about all of this when I started getting into Marxism. So, that’s why when people ask me if I was a Red diaper baby… kinda, but not kinda.”

Then, there’s me. I was born in Caracas, Venezuela to a magazine ad manager and a technology store owner. Unlike Carlos, I was in no way a bottle-fed champion of the working class. I was born into a privileged financial position, complete with private school education and a live-in housemaid. This seems like a very strange reality in retrospect. Our experiences as immigrants in the United States taught us difficult lessons on class rigidity and the cycle of poverty. Yet, at the time, it seemed normal.

My family is a curious collision of two different worlds. My mother's side comes from el Estado Aragua. They were working-class folks of Black and indigenous descent. My grandfather drove a garbage truck, and my grandmother informally sold makeup and homemade goods. My father's side migrated from small-town Sicily to the Venezuelan capital in the 1960s. Historically, European immigrants in Latin America are welcomed with tax breaks, land grants, employment opportunities, and social privilege. The government did not extend such courtesy to Caribbean immigrants or the country’s native people. My paternal grandparents constructed houses (yes, themselves) and collected rent. Two worlds existed in the same country, producing vastly different politics. My maternal grandfather ardently supported Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution. My paternal grandparents would spit in Chávez’ grave if they had the chance.

Reconciling the dichotomies of my family history is an endless process. Many Cubans and Venezuelans see themselves in this predicament. Carlos admits to similar family divisions: “I had other parts of  my family that were very reactionary and part of the opposition. While in Cuba they were actually being funded by interests in Miami that were funded by State Department interests. It was a very weird family dynamic.”

Despite a lack of funding from the State Department, my family members act in a similar fashion. They suffer from Chávez derangement syndrome: they have deluded themselves into feeling nostalgia for a gilded farce of prosperity in our home country. Many Cuban and Venezuelan exiles romanticize the times they enjoyed the fruits of inequality. They compare their material conditions of the past to their material conditions of the present. And are understandingly upset. But rarely do they consider the material conditions of the less fortunate. They do not consider the segregation and squalor endured by the lowest economic classes. They know they had to work hard for their managerial positions and cosmopolitan lifestyle, but they ignore the indigency and indignation that ravished the cityside and rural masses. This lack of class consciousness manifests into racial animus and contempt for the revolutionary cause.

For a long time, I suffered from Chávez derangement syndrome myself. During the New Year’s Eve tradition of eating twelves grapes and making twelve wishes, I routinely wished for Chavez to die. Since birth, the indistinct sounds of the oppositional Globovision blared through my grandparent’s home. I attended opposition marches with my parents. My family even emigrated to the United States in response to Chávez’s restoration of power following the 2002 coup d'état attempt. I had no opportunity to develop my own thoughts or even consider what drove Venezuela to socialism. While not all can be simplified down to a matter of allegiance, ruling class propaganda firmly implanted my young brain with disdain and mistrust.

The vilification of revolutionary leaders dates back centuries. But, the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has mastered the art of turning a country’s own people against each other – to the point where Venezuelan exiles promote and push for economic sanctions against their fellow compatriots. And no one is immune. Even a semi-bottle-fed socialist like Carlos held negative conceptions of Castro before he journeyed into Marxist philosophy and Castro’s works. Now, he proudly hangs a portrait of Castro in his home library.

For me, it took time and education to unlearn those reactionary views. My curiosity began with Latin American critical race theory; then, I ventured into socialism by asking, “Why did the Bolivarian Revolution happen?” No one had ever bothered to discuss such gargantuan aspect of Venezuelan history with me. Perhaps no one had ever bothered to ask the question… or think for themselves. I conducted an undergraduate thesis focusing race relations during the Punto Fijo era of Venezuelan politics. My findings brought me necessary clarity and a fundamental understanding of the nexus between the racial and class struggle in my native land. I finally grasped why my grandfather appreciated Chávez’s populist message so deeply.

To truly decolonize our minds, we must reject the notion that socialist experiments of the Global South have not yielded positive results. Ahistorical accusations of kakistocracy and authoritarianism often mask United States interests. The same people who decry Chávez’s and Maduro’s power romanticize Marcos Pérez Jiménez’s military dictatorship. Same applies to admirers of Fulgencio Batista. As Carlos pointedly remarked, “They’ll say ‘Well, there weren’t these civil liberties in socialist states'. But where were those civil liberties in Czar’s Russia? Where were those civil liberties in pre-Maoist China? Where were those civil liberties in Batista?… They didn’t exist!”

Though the idea of a deformed worker’s state does concern me, Carlos seems unbothered. He poses the question, “How would the Founding Fathers deal with someone advocating for monarchy in the middle of a revolutionary project?” He argues counterrevolution and capitalist-funded insurgency requires a strong state apparatus. Outsiders have long mystified repression in socialist countries, drawing up an unfair caricature of brainwashed people unallowed to think critically. However, these countries’ citizens participate in local affairs, debate about the presence of corruption, and support the tenants of the revolution. The reality is “no one is as critical of Cuba as Cuba is.”

Obviously, socialism is not without faults. But to learn from the successes and the failures of previous experiments, we must divorce ourselves from the false pretense that socialism has never worked.

“This mentality separates things from their historical context and tries to deal with it in the abstract. What happens is that, if you interpret the society that Russia had before and after the revolution, you realize that the mass of people received an incredible amount of freedom. The freedom that they had in every day life increased tremendously. It was a backwards society that industrialized without having to colonize anyone, genocide any  native peoples, or require African slavery. It was able to do all of these things that capitalism had to do the most gruesome things in order to develop. It did it through socialist planning. There were mistakes. Of course, there were mistakes. But it was able to achieve a level of development never before seen, at a velocity never before seen, without the bulk of the negatives that it took capitalism. That’s something that’s extremely impressive.”

Socialism has eradicated or massively alleviated poverty in Russia, China, Vietnam, and Bolivia. Even the alleged catastrophes of Cuba and Venezuela show resilience in the face of economic warfare. Since the countries rebelled against American economic occupation, the United States government has bombarded Cuba and Venezuela with an embargo and economic sanctions. 

In rhetoric, these sanctions stand against human rights violations. In practice, these sanctions are a human rights violation. They cripple economies and violate the sovereignty of local governments. American imperialist policies intend to sow discord in the populace and destabilize the region, in hopes that it creates a motivating factor for regime change. They retaliate against socialist countries’ nationalization of their industries by creating stagflation, medical shortages, and hunger. Then, the desperately impoverished population will want to crawl back to US control of labor and production.

The blockade has taken a tremendous toll on both nations. Business vanished, trade ceased, those who could fled, and those who could not suffered the dire consequences of capitalist greed. Still, the US’ Machiavellian efforts have not reached their ultimate end. The anti-imperialist apparatus and their popular support have weathered the man-made storm of capitalist revenge. To Carlos, this represents a beacon of light: “I look back on my country and am very proud. I look at it as a David and Goliath story, as one of the biggest hopes of the 20th century, a small island that was able to face the biggest empire in the history of humanity and win, something it is still doing.”

He asserts that a capitalist country facing similar conditions would have endured long famines and homelessness. “If that would’ve happened to another type of society, a society that would put money before people, things would’ve been a whole lot worse,” the Cuban Marxist conjectures. I draw one conclusion: the blame has been misplaced. The American state bears the responsibility for the poverty inflicted on Cuban and Venezuelan people. Castro’s and Chávez’s intolerance for rentierism and neocolonialism posed a threat to American hegemony. And we are being punished by a hostile empire.

In the hypocritical name of freedom and democracy, our right to self-determination is being smothered. And propagandized people eat it up. Carlos questions, “Where is your conception of free markets if you’re going to use government regulations to stop trade and to stop Cuba’s ability to trade anywhere else in the world?”

Miami exiles serve as pawns in this ever-brewing Cold War. Their stories of privilege loss resound in the ears of anti-communists. And their fervor for counterrevolution lends legitimacy to past, present, and future aggression. Carlos adds without hesitation, “The worst enemies of the Cubans in Cuba are their brothers and sisters that are in Miami.”

So, if Carlos and I love communism so much, why don’t we just go back home? “For the same reasons why bees follow a stolen beehive. All the wealth from Latin America is funneled to the US. So that’s where the immigrant goes.” We’re coming for what’s ours.​

Nicolas Maduro and the Venezuelan Constituent Assembly have passed an anti-blockade law in an effort to circumvent crippling sanctions from the United States, and jump start the Venezuelan economy. The law will look to increase foreign trade in Venezuela, which many Venezuelan Socialists now fear will lead to an increase in privatizations, particularly in the oil industry, as well as an increase of foreign capital moving into Venezuela. Voices from the revolutionary left in Venezuela have also expressed concern that the law will lead to less government transparency in business dealings. Hashtag #NoApruebo (I don’t approve) was seen trending on Twitter in Venezuela at one point, as Venezuelans voiced their concerns that the law is a betrayal of Bolivarian Socialist values. President Maduro has argued that the law is necessary in the face of the US economic blockade.
​
The past four years have seen the Trump Administration ramp up sanctions, which began in the 2000s with George Bush, and were escalated further under Obama. The Anti-Blockade law shows how many struggles in Venezuela stem from US sanctions. While the US media portrays Maduro as an evil dictator, destroying his own countries’ economy, and oppressing his own people. In reality, the primary critique of Maduro from the working masses of Venezuela themselves, is his inability to combat US sanctions with the same success as his predecessor Hugo Chavez. The anti-blockade law, and subsequent public response, can reveal much about the current situation in Venezuela. A situation which Western corporate media has consistently lied about, in an effort to manufacture public support for regime change in Venezuela.
 
The public outcry against the anti-blockade law on Venezuelan Twitter reveals that many of the Western media narratives about Venezuela are inaccurate. The nonprofit outlet Human Rights Watch (HWR) claims Venezuela “imposes prison sentences of up to 20 years on those who publish messages of intolerance and hatred in media or social media.”[1] HRW says that the Government aggressively targets those who speak negatively about them. The public outcry against the Anti-Blockade law provides an example of how censorship in Venezuela is largely overblown by Western Media. Valid accusations of police brutality, and Government violence in Venezuela, are always met with loud public outcry from the masses in opposition. There are of course valid critiques of Maduro and the Venezuelan Government, however the reality in Venezuela is far from the totalitarian dictatorship it’s made out to be by outlets like HRW.

Many Western Media outlets cite HRW as a source when discussing Venezuela, despite the fact that HRW has faced criticism for having former CIA members, and multinational business executives on their board of directors. Rather than sending journalists to investigate Venezuela, HRW publishes reports from members of the US backed Venezuelan Opposition, who are the minority party in terms of public support. This gives us a glimpse into how lies can be perpetrated on a mass scale in order to sway public opinion in favor of regime change. Even the name Human Rights Watch, gives readers the impression of a non-biased organization reporting on human rights abuses out of concern, when in reality the organization is controlled by corporate executives, and former CIA officials.[2] And most of the so called reporting, is from far right members of the US backed Venezuelan opposition. HRW is just one of many NGOs who feign concern for human rights, while spreading lies, or exaggerations to manufacture support for regime change.
 
The work of HRW is frequently cited by Western media outlets when discussing Venezuela. A survey conducted by Fair.org found that “Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela.” [3] This is in the US, who claim the Venezuelan media is one sided and controlled by the Government. It is hard not to see the irony of a country whose media offers no scrutiny to the idea of overthrowing another countries’ leader in favor of a far right alternative, accusing another country of having a corrupt media apparatus. In reality Venezuela has a mixture of state and opposition media, with the privately owned Venivision dominating the Venezuelan TV and News Market.[4] A far cry from the hegemonic US media, who loudly beat the war drums for the US Empire at every turn.

While the anti-blockade law provides an opportunity for us to critique Maduro and the PSUV Government, the critique stems from the President’s inability to combat US Imperialism. The people of Venezuela are not calling for their President to be ousted, but rather they are demanding he remain faithful to the ideals of the Bolivarian Revolution. A 2017 poll found that 75% of Venezuelan’s still support Socialism.[5] While Venezuelans have their critiques of Maduro, they ultimately recognize that their economic hardships are mostly being caused by the United States, and the economic blockade.
 
The ultimate irony of the US Venezuela situation is the fact that Venezuela is used in the US as a talking point to argue that “socialism fails every time it’s tried.” Meanwhile, within Venezuela, the masses are critiquing Maduro for not being socialist enough. Arguing Maduro should nationalize more industry, and allow for less privatization of the economy. The economy needs to be diversified, and sectors outside of the oil industry need to be strengthened. Outside of those in the Venezuelan Opposition Party, the people of Venezuela largely want more Socialism, not less. In a recent interview concerning the anti-blockade law Venezuelan Chavista leader Telémaco Figueroa said “Socialism will not happen if we join hands with the bourgeoisie. It is we, the working people, who are called upon to carry out the task of saving humanity”[6] It is clear the working masses of Venezuela remain committed to building socialism, and recognize the enemy in their fight is the imperialist US blockade, and the bourgeois opportunists within their own country.

It is vitally important for US leftists to understand the situation in Venezuela. Many who speak out against the blockade within the US are labeled as “dictator defenders,” even by those who see themselves as leftists. However, it is not Nicolas Maduro who those like me are defending. It is folks like Telémaco Figueroa, and the working masses of Venezuela who I choose to defend. Working masses who will loudly critique Maduro when necessary, but who also realize that their struggles originate from the US economic blockade, which is itself a product of capitalism and neoliberalism. I choose to stand with the working masses of Venezuela, and against the criminal economic blockade being imposed by my own country. Those Western leftists calling for regime change should reflect on what it truly means to be anti-imperialist. It is not Maduro who we must stand behind, but rather the working masses of Venezuela. A revolutionary people who remain committed to building socialism while facing pure economic warfare from the US. I stand with the people of Venezuela, and the Bolivarian Revolution as a whole.
 
VIVA LA REVOLUCION!!!

​Citations.​

[1] “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Venezuela.” Human Rights Watch, January 17, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/venezuela.

[2] Bhatt, Keane. “The Hypocrisy of Human Rights Watch.” NACLA, 2013. https://nacla.org/article/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch.

[3] Teddy Ostrow, Helga I. Fellay, Ian, Gpcus, Doug Tarnopol, John Wheat Gibson, Wondering Woman, et al. “Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela.” FAIR, April 30, 2019. https://fair.org/home/zero-percent-of-elite-commentators-oppose-regime-change-in-venezuela/.

[4] Lucas Koerner., Ricardo Vaz Ricardo Vaz is a political analyst and editor at Venezuelanalysis., Doug Latimer, Janice Olson, EL Comandante, Kc, Wondering Woman, , Arkan, and Michel St-Laurent. “There's Far More Diversity in Venezuela's 'Muzzled' Media Than in US Corporate Press.” FAIR, May 20, 2019. https://fair.org/home/theres-far-more-diversity-in-venezuelas-muzzled-media-than-in-us-corporate-press/.

[5] Mallett-Outtrim, Ryan. “75% Of Venezuelans Support Socialism: Poll.” Venezuelanalysis.com, August 2, 2019. https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13251.

[6] Venezuelanalysis.com, Cira Pascual Marquina –. “The Controversial Anti-Blockade Law: A Conversation with Telémaco Figueroa.” Venezuelanalysis.com, October 27, 2020. https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/15029. 

About the Author:
My name is Edward and I am from Sauk City, Wisconsin. I received my B.A. in Political Science from Loras College, where I was a former NCAA wrestling All-American, and active wrestling coach. My main interest are in Geopolitics and the role of American imperialism with relation to socialist states, specifically China and Venezuela.  ​I also worked for Bernie Sanders' campaign in 2020.

Any politically active individual in the United States advocating for Socialism has likely heard the argument “what about Venezuela?.” In 1998, Venezuela elected President Hugo Chavez of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and are currently led by President Nicolàs Maduro of the same party. Beginning around 2012 Venezuela began experiencing economic slowdowns which have worsened since that time. The country is currently experiencing what Economists refer to as stagflation, meaning high inflation combined with high unemployment. Reports now show the Venezuelan citizenry are experiencing food and medical shortages creating a humanitarian crisis in the country.

In 2018, the Organization of American States (OAS) concluded that the Venezuelan elections were fraudulent, and had been illegally influenced by Maduro in order to maintain his position as President. These elections were used as justification for The United States, Britain, German, France, and many other Western powers to support a 2019 coup attempting to install Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as President. The coup failed, however, and Maduro remains in power. Despite the failed attempt, the aforementioned Western countries, as well as some right wing Latin American Governments, such as Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil, now recognize Guaido as the rightful President of Venezuela.

The vast majority of Western Media have concluded that Maduro and his socialist policies are to blame for Venezuela’s Political and Economic turmoil. Corporately owned Western outlets, such as the Washington Post, blame nationalization of industry and irresponsible government spending for Venezuela’s economic collapse. This narrative often fails to include any information about the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela or their effect on the Venezuelan citizenry. These sanctions, which began under Bush in 2005,  have only increased under both the Obama and Trump administrations; the Congressional Research Service reports 144 different sanctions imposed by the United States on Venezuela(FAS). The timing of these sanctions seems to coincide with the Venezuelan economic slowdowns that have led to the current humanitarian crisis.

To understand what is happening in Venezuela it is essential to consider the impacts of both the US sanctions as well as mistakes made by the Socialist Party. This essay will attempt to answer the seemingly simple question “What about Venezuela?”. Looking at all factors involved including sanctions, CIA intervention, and Venezuelan Government policies. This essay will also analyze the hegemonic Western media narrative about Venezuela and the financial motivations which exist for the media to encourage regime change in the country.

Since 1912, Venezuela has been an economy based on exporting oil. To this day, the entire economy and standard of living for people in Venezuela is dependent on how the oil industry is being managed. The vast amounts of oil underneath the country was a metaphorical gold mine for Royal Dutch Shell, and Rockefeller Standard Oil in the early 1900’s. In 1936, Venezuela began to take control of their oil industry while cutting out foreign companies, attempting to “Sow the Oil”. This plan aimed to take oil revenue and use it to invest in other industries and social programs, diversifying and modernizing the Venezuelan Economy. By 1976 Carlos Andres Perez fully nationalized Venezuelan oil with a goal of redistributing more of the wealth it created to workers. Although the Perez administration would take a turn towards neoliberal policy, allowing multi-national corporations to share in Venezuelan oil riches. This lead to a poverty rate of over 50% and two attempted coups by Hugo Chavez. Perez would eventually be convicted by the Venezuelan Supreme court of embezzlement. The Venezuelan economy has always been somewhat of a roller coaster. When global oil prices are up, so is the Venezuelan economy and vice versa. In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected in Venezuela and began visiting every country, especially those membered with The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), urging them to set a quota on oil production. This quota was meant to keep production of oil low enough so that prices remained higher and more stable. Chavez’s efforts were successful as oil prices rose to their highest levels since 1985. Chavez also “renationalized” the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA which he argued was acting independently of the state, becoming its own entity which prioritized their own profit over the betterment of Venezuela. Since 1912 the Venezuelan economy has been tied to oil and has found itself in a constant struggle to keep global oil prices high, to diversify their economy, and to remove possibilities of foreign companies profiting from their oil reserves. This history is vitally important for understanding the current economic and political situation in the country.

The main flaw in the Venezuelan Economy is that it is not adequately diversified. Since the early 1900’s, the country has been completely dependent on oil which has led to multiple negative side effects. Economists have prescribed Venezuela with Dutch Disease, meaning the country’s oil industry has become disproportionately large, and other industries have suffered as a result. This Dutch Disease phenomenon was first seen in Holland in the 1970s when the country discovered oil. Essentially, as the oil market of a company becomes strong, that country’s currency is strengthened globally as a result of the new revenue. This makes it more expensive for other industries to export their goods, as the costs for goods has now increased due to the spike in oil revenue. A journal entitled Sowing the Oil states, “The discovery of oil and the conversion to a petro-economy caused an influx of foreign exchange in the country, making food imports cheaper than domestic production and a resultant massive rural exodus.” (Clark).

A main goal of Venezuelan Government since 1999 has been to combat Dutch Disease by creating food sovereignty in the country. The plan has been to use the money brought in through oil exports to create state run farms allowing more domestic food production. Overall, these policies had success lowering poverty from 49% to 26% between 2000 and 2010. Along with this, malnutrition became almost nonexistent in Venezuela, raising average calorie consumption from 91% of recommended levels to 101.6%. (Weisbrot). Additional successes include the Mission Robinson program which taught 1.5 new Venezuelans to read and write, prompting UNESCO to declare in 2005 that Venezuela had abolished illiteracy. Infant mortality in Venezuela dropped by 49% from 1999 to 2010. 700,000 new homes have been built to combat homelessness. (Lamrani).

In order to implement these policies, Chavez, and Maduro after him, needed to maintain control of the Venezuelan oil company, PDVSA. Prior to his election, Chavez felt that PDVSA was functioning as a State within the State. In order to enact the policies of food sovereignty, Chavez fired many directors of the PDVSA and strengthened state control over the oil company. This allowed for the Government to use oil profits as they see fit. This meant more focus on endogenous development, meaning the country could use the revenue from imports to increase equity and human development.
           
The goals of the Venezuelan government have always been at odds with those of the United States. Venezuela is run by a Socialist party which has nationalized their oil using the revenues to increase social programs and domestic food growth. The United States on the other hand, promotes capitalism and the autonomy for private entities to make decisions that are based on what is in their financial best interest. This philosophical clash has created a situation where the more the Venezuelan state gains control over their oil, the less profit there is to be made for private fossil fuel companies. Citgo is the only US Company which remains in Venezuela, and it is forced to make large payments to the Venezuelan State in order to remain. This could be the motivation behind the strong sanctions which the US has imposed on Venezuela since Chavez was elected. As Venezuelan oil sovereignty has increased so have the sanctions from the United States. The conflict between the two countries peaked in 2018 when Juan Guaido and the US backed opposition party attempted a coup on the Maduro. The United States has now escalated their position from imposing economic sanctions to outright refusing to recognize Maduro as the sitting President.

The United States Government has become closely linked to private oil companies within the country. This has led the United States to impose economic warfare on Venezuela in the form of sanctions, mostly on Venezuelan oil. In addition, the US has maximized global oil production in countries such as Saudi Arabia, which keeps private profits high and the price per barrel of oil low. This economic warfare has become more visible during the Trump administration, whose members speak openly about meeting with oil executives to kneecap the Venezuelan economy.
​
The sole remaining US Company in Venezuela is Citgo, which maintains refineries in both the US and Venezuela. The Citgo refineries in Venezuela are owned by the PDVSA, meaning most of their profits go to the Venezuelan Government. In 2019 Trump and former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, attempted to halt this cash flow. The Washington Post reports “The administration’s new sanctions order the company to divert its payments for Venezuelan crude into a US bank account that Maduro would be unable to access.” (Mufson). Bolton also told the post he had a “very productive meeting with three Citgo executives.”

This meeting between the US government and the oil executives is a perfect microcosm of what US economic policy has been in Venezuela. The US state and oil executives have become so closely tied that the National Security Advisor openly admits urging Citgo to divert money created by Venezuelan labor into a US bank account. While some might define this action as theft, the Post article written by Steven Mufson is clearly supportive of this new sanction. The article calls Citgo “the last remaining crown jewel of Venezuela’s failing economy.” The article later states, “only Citgo has provided cash that Maduro has used to ensure the loyalty of his supporters.” Referring to Venezuelan social programs as “payments to ensure loyalty”. Furthering the idea that Maduro is a corrupt dictator only concerned with furthering his own power. The article goes on to praise Citgo who saw economic gains after sanctions allowed them to simply take the oil revenue for themselves rather than paying it to the State where it was produced.

This reporting from one of the largest and most respected media outlets in the US has a clear bias towards private business. The article fails to explore how these new sanctions affect the Venezuelan people. Simultaneously, the author accuses the Venezuelan Government of corruption while not questioning whether it is ethical for a US secretary of foreign affairs to meet with top oil executives at a private fossil fuel company. This narrative is perpetrated by almost every news source in the country and provides a hegemonic narrative with a one sided view about the crisis in Venezuela that completely absolves the US of any blame.
           
The justification given for the sanctions and attempted coup in Venezuela in the narrative popular with the US media is that Maduro is an authoritarian dictator who needs be removed. The United States rejected Venezuela’s electoral process in 2018, arguing that the election was undemocratic and had been altered by Maduro. Maduro received 68% of the vote in 2018, US media reported low voter turnout and irregularities in the voting schedule as evidence that the elections were fraudulent. Many academics have questioned the claims of illegitimate elections as Venezuela is known for their clean and fair elections.

A report on the 2018 Venezuelan elections and subsequent media coverage said “The supposed dictatorial Venezuelan Government pleaded with the UN to send as many observers as possible. Elections in Venezuela are already probably the most heavily monitored around the world. Successive reports from hostile sources such as the European Union and Carter Center have strongly praised the election system” (McLeod). The organization CEELA comprised of Latin American election officials, many from countries hostile to Venezuela, praised the 2018 elections for their scrutiny. CEELA President Nicanor Moscoso said “We can emphasize that these elections must be recognized because they are the result of the will of the Venezuelan people.” Despite these reports, the US and many other countries refuse to recognize Maduro as President. 

Another reason given for the need to overthrow Maduro is that he has cracked down on any dissent in Venezuela, even torturing those who dare to oppose the Venezuelan Government. The organization “Human Rights Watch” has been one of the main perpetrators of this narrative. In 2017 they published a report entitled Crackdown on Dissent. Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela. In this article, Human Rights Watch reports between April and September of 2018. “88 cases involving at least 314 people who were victims of serious human rights violations” (Vivanco). It is unclear how Human Rights Watch received this information. However, what is known is the organization wants increased international pressure on Venezuela. The article concludes with a ‘recommendation’ paragraph which reads “To ensure accountability for and deter the repetition of human rights abuses documented in this report, it is critically important to redouble international pressure on the Venezuelan Government.”
​
Human Rights Watch is heavily funded by billionaire Capitalist George Soros who in 2010 pledged to give $100 million to the organization over 10 years (Pilkington). Along with this pledge, in 2020 the group was caught taking a $470,000 donation from Saudi Arabian real estate magnate Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber under the stipulation that the money could not be used to support LGBTQ advocacy (Emmons). In addition, Human Rights Watch has also come under fire for a revolving door on their board for US government members including NATO secretary, Javier Solana, Colombian ambassador, Myles Frechette, and CIA analyst, Miguel Diaz (Democracy Now). This revolving door allows Human Rights Watch to act as a mouthpiece for the US Government and the interests of their donors. The organization has been one of the strongest advocates for regime change in Venezuela. Their claims about Maduro and calls for regime change need to be looked at with scrutiny and conflicts of interests need to be addressed.

Another one of the most powerful voices for regime change in Venezuela has come from the Atlantic Council, a multimillion dollar think tank in Washington DC. In 2017 the Atlantic Council published a research report on their Economic Sanctions Initiative, which in their own words is meant to “build a platform for dialogue between the public and the private sector to investigate how to improve the design and implementation of economic sanctions. The initiative has a focus that goes beyond a purely national security perspective on sanctions to bridge the gap with the broader business perspective” (Forrer). This publicly available statement from the Atlantic Council helps to reveal what exactly is motivating these economic sanctions. The group openly admits that they are attempting to create a partnership between the public and private sectors. In other words, allowing private capital to use the state as a tool to create better business opportunities abroad.

The Atlantic Council’s board of directors is a who’s who of powerful U.S. businessmen, including Council Chairman, John F.W. Rogers, who also resides as an executive officer of Goldman Sachs. (Goldman Sachs). Chairman of the Atlantic Council International advisory board is former US treasury secretary, David McCormick, who is also the CEO of Bridgewater Associates, the self-proclaimed “world’s largest hedge fund” (Bridgewater). It’s far from a conspiracy theory to say that private business interests influence sanctions imposed by the United State Government. The Atlantic Council has close ties to both the state and private business, and as can be seen with David McCormick, often acts as a revolving door between the two groups. This relationship has allowed The Atlantic Council to have great influence over US economic policy dating all the way back to 2006 when their report on the global oil markets targeted Venezuela as a “major energy producer” who had “re-nationalized their oil assets”. The Atlantic Council goes on to say, “it was seen as an increasing challenge to U.S. dominance in global energy and political affairs” (Atlantic Council 2006). Rarely mentioned in the Atlantic Council briefings are concerns about human rights or fear of authoritarian power grabs by the Venezuelan Government. Those encouraging and crafting the sanctions seem to be primarily concerned with global oil markets rather than providing humanitarian aid.
           
Despite the United States public “commitment of humanitarian support for Venezuelan people” (US Treasury). A report done in 2019 by economist, Jeffery Sachs, linked 40,000 Venezuelan deaths as a direct result of US sanctions since 2017. (Sachs). Sachs makes the argument that the economic collapse in Venezuela is being purposefully orchestrated by the U.S. Government. The Trump administration has had the goal of regime change in Venezuela since 2017, when Trump initiated  the idea to advisors of a full on military intervention in Venezuela, and even saying publicly in 2017 “we have many options for Venezuela, and by the way I’m not going to rule out a military option” (Merica).  

After being met with pushback from those within his administration as well as many Latin American allies, Trump instead has opted to metaphorically strangle the Venezuelan economy through sanctions. The goal being to create more instability in the region, making it easier to instill a puppet President in Gauido who will hand the PDVSA over to U.S. Business interests. Sachs argues that in 2017, a new batch of U.S. sanctions prevented the PDVSA from accessing global oil markets, and prevented the company from restructuring its loans. The report finds that these sanctions are what triggered the hyperinflation Venezuela has experienced since 2017. After these sanctions were implemented oil revenue plummeted. As was mentioned earlier, the Venezuelan economy hinges entirely on the success of its oil revenue. As a result of decreased income, funding for medicine, food, and social welfare programs plummeted along with oil revenue. We also know that since 2017, the U.S. has directly intercepted money from Citgo which is supposed to be paid to the Venezuelan Government. John Bolton boasted about this fact when he was still with the Trump administration in 2019. (Mufson). Jeffery Sachs is clear that the numbers in his report are rough estimates based off what has been studied in Venezuelan universities. While nobody can know the exact death toll, Sachs says that we need to look at the clear fact that U.S. policy has created and exacerbated the Venezuelan economic crisis in order to destabilize the region and create regime change.
​
May 2020 saw the first coup attempt in Latin America in years. Two former Green Beret’s attempted to enter Venezuela through Macuto Port. It was later discovered that their plan was to travel to Caracas and simply take out Nicolas Maduro. The attempted coup was organized by the company Silvercorp, a company known for supplying bodyguards, who thought they should try their hand in mercenary work. The two men attempting the coup were captured by Venezuelan fisherman before they ever reached land in Venezuela. They have since been sentenced with up to 20 years in prison for the failed coup attempt.

The US of course denied involvement with the coup, despite the fact that they placed a multi-million dollar bounty on Maduro’s head for supposed drug trafficking. It is highly likely that the Silvercorp mercenaries were hoping to capitalize on that bounty. This incident demonstrates how deeply anti-Venezuelan propaganda has penetrated the US public consciousness. The US Government, and private media, have manufactured a culture in the US where people are willing to sacrifice 20 years in a Venezuelan prison, for an ill-fated attempt to take down the Venezuelan president, and also make some quick money. The mercenaries believed they would be welcomed as liberators, freeing the Venezuelan people from their tyrannical dictatorship. What they found in reality were simple fisherman, who remained loyal to the Venezuelan Government, and were willing to risk their lives to expel US imperialists. No situation illustrates US-Venezuela relations better than the Silvercorp coup of 2020.
​
Another factor that can’t be overlooked is Venezuela’s relationship to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Maduro referred to the IMF in 2020 as “bloodsucking assassins” as well as a “tool of U.S. imperialism” (Emersberger). As the Covid-19 pandemic has swept across the globe, the IMF has provided some legitimacy to Maduro’s claims. Being a country already struggling to fund its healthcare services, the Venezuelan people are at high risk for being killed by the virus (Reeves). To help keep hospitals running as they are flooded with covid-19 patients, Maduro requested a loan of $5 million from the IMF. The IMF has rejected the request claiming that there is no certainty whether the International Community recognizes Maduro or not. This action comes even though 105 countries voted at the United Nations assembly for Maduro to be included into the human rights council, with only 50 countries voting against. In addition to this, the IMF immediately offered loans to the opposition party who removed Hugo Chavez from office for a full 47 hours via coup in 2002. (Emersberger).

The IMF has a long history of assisting with U.S. foreign policy interests and global business interests alike. Although the original goal of the IMF was to prevent global economic crises, it has come under fire for acting as a tool of imperialism, especially at the behest of the United States. The Organization’s headquarters are stationed in Washington D.C. and the U.S. has the most votes on IMF decisions, and is the only country with the power to veto any actions voted on by the rest of the IMF council (Rivera). Those who sit on the IMF council are not elected democratically but are appointed by the United States and Europe (Hickel). Given the amount of U.S. control over the IMF it should be no surprise that the organization rejected Venezuela’s request for a loan. This situation highlights the hypocrisy of the claim that the United States is concerned with humanitarian issues in Venezuela. In a global panic surrounding the Corona Virus, the IMF is refusing to fund the failing Venezuelan hospitals. The US focus seems to be on further destabilizing Venezuela by refusing their request for life saving loans, while placing the blame on the Venezuelan Government by claiming it’s unclear who their leader is.

The statement from the IMF on Corona Virus says they currently have $1 trillion prepared, which it will use to “shield effected people and firms with large, timely, targeted fiscal and financial sector measures.” (Georgieva). Keeping the Venezuelan hospitals afloat would appear to be a worthy goal for an organization like the IMF tasked with keeping an eye on the global economy. The refusal to bail out the Venezuelan hospitals is evidence that the IMF acts as a tool of U.S. foreign policy interest rather than an organization entirely focused on the public good. 

Continuing with the topic of Corona virus, an analysis of the US response to covid-19 in relation to Venezuela can also help to reveal their intentions in the region. As the pandemic has swept across the entire world, severely hindering the global economy, the US justice department has charged Maduro for being an illegal drug trafficker. The hope being that the global pandemic offers a prime opportunity for regime change in Venezuela. An article published by the New York Times in late March titled “U.S. Counts on Global Crises to Press Again for Power Shift in Venezuela” (Jakes). The US offered to relieve some of the harsh sanctions on Venezuela during the pandemic, so long as Maduro relinquishes power to opposition leader Juan Guaido.

​The Times article fails to give an overview of the sanctions, or the Venezuelan situation, and only features interviews from high ranking US officials. One of these being Elliot Abrams, a diplomat who made a name for himself in the Reagan administration. The Times article asked Abrams about the Pandemic, and the recent crash of global oil prices with him saying “If any good can come out of those, maybe it is the combination of pressures on the regime that leads them to negotiate seriously.” This statement reveals the brutality of US foreign policy in Venezuela, and the dedication to regime change in the country. At a time when citizens in both the US and Venezuela are suffering from a pandemic, the goal of the government remains fixed on regime change. Venezuela remains desperate for funds to keep their hospitals running. A true humanitarian approach to Venezuela would be to relieve sanctions, and supply them with the loan to keep hospitals running. Instead the US looks to capitalize on the pandemic by destabilizing Venezuela further, and withholding aid until Maduro steps down. The pandemic reveals that the goal of the US in Venezuela has less to do with human rights, and everything to do with regime change.

Another common accusation hurled at the Venezuelan government is the censorship of independent media. A Times article from 2019 said of Venezuelan media “Most television is state-run, and authorities ban the few independent TV and radio stations from covering Venezuela’s crisis as it unfolds.” (Nugent). This statement is simply false as the last study conducted on Venezuelan media in 2013 found that of the three major media outlets in Venezuela only 25% of the public watches the state run VTV. The most popular news outlet is Venevision which is independently owned by billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, with 36% viewership. In addition to this are the privately owned Televen, and Globovision who account for a combined 37% of viewership. (Mccoy). The Time article is either ignorant to these statistics, or the author is choosing to lie purposefully in order to further encourage regime change.

The cries of censorship from the US appear hypocritical when analyzing the Venezuelan media in comparison with the Hegemonic US corporate media. In 2019 a survey from FAIR found “no voices in elite corporate media that opposed regime change” (Ostrow). When it comes to regime change in any country it is difficult to find any voices in the US media championing diplomacy rather than increasing sanctions or military aggression. As Noam Chomsky once said “any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the US media.” This rings true for the case in Venezuela as every mainstream media outlet calls for regime change in unison.
           
The primary error of the Socialist party in Venezuela has been the inability to diversify their economy beyond oil. When Hugo Chavez took power in 1998 he inherited a country suffering from Dutch Disease, with an oil industry which dwarfed all other industry in Venezuela. Having an economy which is over reliant on oil has made Venezuela an easy target for destabilization through economic sanctions. Along with this the vast oil reserves make Venezuela a gold mine for multi-national fossil fuel corporations. Venezuela have found themselves in a situation similar to Cuba after the fall of the USSR, hurriedly attempting to diversify in an attempt to survive the trade war being waged upon them by the world’s largest superpower. Venezuela has been critiqued as being a failure of socialism, but in reality Venezuela is not socialist enough. For comparison look to Norway, a country similar to Venezuela with a nationalized oil industry, and large oil reserves to pull from. Unlike Venezuela Norway is considered an economic success, maintaining a healthy welfare state, and ranking 7th globally in quality of life by the Economist. Unlike Venezuela, Norway has amassed a trillion dollars in capital, which pays for Government spending and the welfare state.

In total the Norwegian Government owns 76% of the countries non home national wealth. (Breunig). Although exact statistics on Venezuela are not available, we know their numbers are nowhere near this. In addition Venezuela has used their oil wealth to create social programs, but have not created large amounts of collectively owned capital in the same way Norway has. This process of creating collectively owned capital using oil revenue can prevent crises if the oil market is to crash “By purchasing shares rather than spending directly, these funds grow in comparison to their fossil-fuel income. For jurisdictions that are dependent on finite resources, this builds up a durable buffer stock of renewable financial income that can be used to pick up the slack from a declining fossil fuel industry.” (Gowan).

Norway’s key to success has been their ability to further collectivize the nation’s wealth, while further diversifying their economy. Venezuela on the other hand has failed to create this collectively owned capital, which the economy can fall back on in times of oil crisis. The irony of this being that the solution for Venezuela, the poster child for the failure of socialism, is more socialism, or collectivization of the nation’s wealth. Of course another distinct difference between these two countries, is that Norway has never been forced to deal with crippling economic sanctions. The luxury of being located in the European Global North has allowed Norway to mostly avoid becoming the target of imperialism. Venezuela on the other hand, must attempt to diversify their economy in the face of crippling sanctions, and constant foreign intervention.

Since sanctions have increased Venezuela has been experiencing what is known as hyperinflation. This occurs when a country experiences extreme inflation, meaning their currency loses its value, making the price of goods and services increase. Western media sources often blame Venezuela’s decision to print money as the reasoning for this hyperinflation they are now experiencing. An article by the economist reads “The worthlessness of Venezuela’s currency is the result of inflation, 46,000% a year, which in turn is largely caused by the printing of money to finance the Government’s deficit of 30% GDP.” The idea is that the increased amount of Venezuelan currency in circulation made it less valuable on a global scale when compared to other countries. This assertion requires further investigation, especially when considering all the factors at play in Venezuela.
​
Firstly we know that printing money does not always lead to hyperinflation. The best example of this is the United States, who have provided enormous corporate bailouts during the 2008 recession, and currently during the Corona pandemic. This has brought the country almost $25 trillion in debt, which outweighs the US GDP of around $20 trillion. The US will continue to take on debt during the pandemic, most recently agreeing to a $2 trillion dollar stimulus package to bailout major corporations including the airline industry according to Business Insider. Despite printing trillions for corporate bailouts, the United States has avoided experiencing hyperinflation. This is evidence that printing money is not in fact the root cause of the hyperinflation phenomenon. If it were the case that printing money caused hyperinflation, the US would have experienced the phenomenon a while ago.

Many economists now dispute the idea that hyperinflation is caused by the printing of money. A Forbes article from 2011 responding to the recession explained how inflation is far too complex to simply blame on the printing of money. The article by economist John T. Harvey explains that alternate factors such as global oil prices have far more to do with inflation than printing money. In addition to this much of the money in circulation at this point is digital, and not backed by any kind of physical currency. The inflation analogy given in introductory economics courses says to imagine a helicopter dropping money into one country. If a country does this they will then have more currency in circulation which devalues in comparison to other currencies in the world. However, the fact that much of the money in circulation is electronic complicates this theory. Money is no longer dependent on the amount of physical monetary value in circulation. Therefore, the US has been free to increase debt by handing stimulus money to the private sector without facing hyperinflation. The Harvey article is extremely technical, and involves a thorough mathematical analysis of factors which lead to inflation. His argument simply stated being “It is conventional wisdom that printing money causes inflation. This is why we are seeing so many warnings today of… how the Federal Government’s deficit will lead to skyrocketing prices. The only problem is, it’s not true. That’s not how inflation works.“(Harvey). The concept of inflation is far more complex than the media often makes it out to be. A deeper analysis is needed to truly understand the hyperinflation which Venezuela is currently experiencing.

To better understand hyperinflation we can look to the historical examples of when this economic phenomenon has occurred. Every time throughout history the economy experiencing hyperinflation has been subject to many external shocks. The primary example of this was Germany in the early 1920s. Following the First World War the treaty of Versailles was signed, concluding that Germany had started the war, and demanding they pay large reparations to the allied countries. The book When Money Dies by Adam Fergusson explains what happened in Germany following World War 1 which led to their hyperinflation. The books says of the Treaty of Versailles “what spelt doom were the clauses that made Germany responsible for the war and demanded colossal reparations- in money and in kind- to meet the allies cost” (Fergusson). It is clear that the outside shock caused by the allies is what caused the German economy to implode. The time that followed the treaty was a period of great economic instability for the people of Germany, which laid the foundation for the rise of fascism. Adolph Hitler and the Nazi party took advantage of this economic insecurity, unifying people against the allies who had a part in sending Germany into hyperinflation.

Much can be learned from the historical example of Germany’s hyperinflation almost 100 years ago. We know now that printing money is not the main factor which leads a country to hyperinflation. Outside shocks to a country’s economy are what send them spiraling into extreme inflation. Although there is no treaty demanding Venezuela pay the US reparations, as stated earlier in this paper, Citgo is now diverting money owed to the Venezuelan Government into US bank accounts (Mufson). Other outside shocks of course include the harsh economic sanctions, and the US influence over OPEC oil production used to deplete the amount of money Venezuela can sell their oil for (Lawler). Venezuela’s money printing habits likely have far less to do with the hyperinflation than does the external shock to their economy caused by this multitude of factors.
           
Unfortunately hyperinflation has strong negative impacts on the Venezuelan populace. Citizens are often forced to use alternative forms of currency, or cross the border into Columbia for food. An article by Reuters on the subject interviewed Venezuelan Citizen Moises Hernandez, who works in San Antonio Venezuela. Hernandez often times crosses the border into Colombia for food, and is paid in Colombian Pesos. Hernandez is quotes as saying “unless we buy over there, we cannot eat.” (Armas). This leaves the question of how those who don’t live on the border pay for food when their currency has lost its value while food prices increase? The answer is many don’t as people suffer from hunger and poverty in the heart of the country. The idea that US intervention in Venezuela is based on protecting human rights begins to fall apart when this is taken into consideration. Even the highest estimates of deaths inflicted by the Maduro government fall well short of the death and suffering caused by the systematic economic destabilization of the country.

 Another charge often lobbed at Venezuela by Western media is their rejection of humanitarian aid from the United States. Maduro has used the Venezuelan military to blockade the border wherever the US attempts to ship humanitarian aid to the country. Opposition leader Juan Guaido on the other hand has been a strong proponent of allowing the humanitarian aid into the country. On the surface this seems like a simple issue, as Venezuela should accept the aid their people need. This is the media has helped to spin a narrative that Maduro is too proud to accept the aid, and would rather allow his people to suffer. An NPR articled parroted the talking points of the US foreign policy hawks such as Mike Pompeo saying “the Maduro regime must LET THE AID REACH THE STARVING PEOPLE.” (Wamsley). The only quote from Venezuela included in the article is from Maduro himself who said “never been, nor are we, a country of beggars.” This article along with many others relating to this topic portray the narrative that the US is trying to help, but Maduro’s pride is too great to accept the humanitarian aid. This from NPR, one of the most respected news outlets in America, who are sometimes accused of having a left wing bias. However, NPR’s willingness to champion regime change narratives in Venezuela bring into question their legitimacy as a left wing outlet.

In reality the reason Maduro gave for rejecting humanitarian aid from the United States is a fear that the US will not be sending exclusively food and medicine, but guns and ammunition to arm the opposition party against the socialist government. Elliot Abrams who is currently one of the strongest and most powerful proponents of regime change in Venezuela, was a part of the Reagan administration who shipped weapons disguised as humanitarian aid to the Contra forces in Nicaragua. This is not a matter of speculation but fact, as the US officials have admitted that this happened in 1986. An LA Times article reads “Reagan administration aids deliberately used a 1986 program of ‘Humanitarian Aid’ for Nicaraguan rebels to help support the secret effort to deliver military aid to the contras, U.S. officials said.” (Mcmanus). The US history of disguising weapons as humanitarian aid, with the goal of regime change, reveals the real reason Maduro is skeptical of accepting aid from the United States. Contrary to the narrative from Western media that the so called dictator is too proud to accept aid, Maduro’s true goal is to prevent the US backed opposition party from further arming themselves against the Government. 
           
​Not only does the US have a history of disguising arms as humanitarian aid in other Latin American countries, but have already been caught trying this tactic on Maduro’s Venezuela itself. During the Nicaraguan crisis the US used $27 million in congressionally approved humanitarian aid to hire a private consultant who then shipped arms to the contra forces. This pattern was replicated almost exactly in Venezuela, where a Boeing 767 airplane owned by a private company in North Carolina was caught smuggling arms into Venezuela. Democracy Now reports “Venezuelan authorities claimed they had uncovered 19 assault weapons, 118 ammunition cartridges, and 90 military grade radio antennas on board a US plane flown from Miami into Valencia” (Goodman). It was also reported that his plane had recently made 40 trips between Miami and Venezuela. The failure of US media to report the history of the US shipment of weapons disguised as aid into Latin America, further shows the agenda of those crafting these narratives. Rather than a nuanced discussion of the conflict between the two countries, and the economic hardships, Maduro is portrayed as a villainous dictator who starves his own people. It is easy to see why many in this country do not have a nuanced view of US foreign policy when supposed left wing outlets such as NPR perpetuate this black and white narrative of Maduro as a villain. The stories of Maduro rejecting humanitarian aid are case studies in how the media can use selective facts and quotes to promote their preferred narrative.

The narrative told about Venezuela in the Western Media is far from the whole story. The harsh economic sanctions intended to destabilize the country are rarely if ever critically analyzed by corporate media. A deeper dive into the sources of the information shows clear conflict of interest, as those who control the media often have business interest in freeing up the Venezuelan oil reserves to be extracted and sold by multinational corporations. With nine of ten United States elections being decided by the candidate who raises the most money, these corporations now appear to have a stranglehold on the United States Government. (Open Secrets). This corporate domination over the U.S. political system has allowed for the systematic destabilization of Venezuela, although the U.S. has yet to reach their ultimate goal of regime change in the country. As even supposed left wing democratic socialists such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez come out in favor of regime change in Venezuela, it is important to look deeper into what is truly occurring in the country, and what the motives of U.S. corporations are in the country. It is equally as important to remain critical of how much power corporations are allowed to have over the CIA and other tools of government, international agencies such as the IMF and World Bank, as well as the Media who inform the public about issues of foreign policy. A more critical analysis of all these factors reveal that the situation in Venezuela is far more complicated than it appears on the surface.

​Works Cited
Venezuela overview of U.S. sanctions. (2020, February 21). Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf
Booth, J. A., & Richard, P. B. (2014). Latin American political culture: Public opinion and democracy. CQ Press.
Blank, D. (1984). 'Sowing the Oil'. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-),8(4), 63-78. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/40256783
Wilpert, G. (2007, September 14). The Economics, Culture, and Politics of Oil in Venezuela. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/74
W. M. CORDEN, BOOMING SECTOR AND DUTCH DISEASE ECONOMICS: SURVEY AND CONSOLIDATION , Oxford Economic Papers, Volume 36, Issue 3, November 1984, Pages 359–380, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041643
Clark, P. (2010). Sowing the Oil? The Chavez Government's Policy Framework for an Alternative Food System in Venezuela. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 33(1/2), 135-165. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/23263229
Weisbrot, M. (2009, February). The Chavez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf
Lamrani, S. (2019, August 01). 50 Truths about Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8133
McLeod, A. (2018). Manufacturing Consent for the 2018 Elections in Venezuela and Colombia. Glascow University Media Group, 2(2). Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02047706/document
Mufson, S. (2019, January 30). Trump's sanctions hit Venezuela where it hurts: Its oil. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/citgos-profits-propped-up-venezuelan-leaders--until-now/2019/01/30/f0342c0e-2324-11e9-90cd-dedb0c92dc17_story.html
teleSUR/jc-MH. (2018, May 21). Ceela Electoral Experts Say Venezuela Vote Reflects 'Will of the People,' Must Be Respected. Retrieved from https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Ceela-Electoral-Experts-Say-Venezuela-Vote-Reflects-Will-of-the-People-Must-Be-Respected-20180521-0017.html
Vivanco, J. M. (2019, January 15). Crackdown on Dissent: Brutality, Torture, and Political Persecution in Venezuela. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/11/29/crackdown-dissent/brutality-torture-and-political-persecution-venezuela
Fernández, B., Fernández, B., Frase, P., Foner, E., Jones, E., Ackerman, S., … Blanc, E. (2014, August 6). Human Rights Watch's Revolving Door. Retrieved from https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/06/human-rights-watchs-revolving-door/
Pilkington, E. (2010, September 7). George Soros gives $100 million to Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/07/george-soros-100-million-human-rights-watch
Emmons, A. (2020, March 2). Human Rights Watch Took Money From Saudi Businessman After Documenting His Coercive Labor Practices. Retrieved from https://theintercept.com/2020/03/02/human-rights-watch-took-money-from-saudi-businessman-after-documenting-his-coercive-labor-practices/
Debate: Is Human Rights Watch Too Close to U.S. Gov't to Criticize Its Foreign Policy? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/11/debate_is_human_rights_watch_too
Executive Officers - John F. W. Rogers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/leadership/executive-officers/john-f-w-rogers.html
FORRER, J. (2017). (Rep.). Atlantic Council. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/resrep16794
Executive Officers - John F. W. Rogers. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/leadership/executive-officers/john-f-w-rogers.html
David McCormick. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.bridgewater.com/leadership/david-mccormick/
ATLANTIC COUNCIL. (2006). U.S.-China Energy Security Cooperation Dialogue (pp. 5-7, Rep.). Atlantic Council. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/resrep17101.5
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2020, March 27). Retrieved from https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm752
Economist Jeffrey Sachs: U.S. Sanctions Have Devastated Venezuela & Killed Over 40,000 Since 2017. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/1/economist_jeffrey_sachs_us_sanctions_have
Merica, D. (2017, August 11). Trump says he won't rule out military option in Venezuela. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/11/politics/trump-xi-north-korea/index.html
Emersberger, J. (2020, March 25). Media Struggle to Defend Washington's Cruelty Toward Venezuela and Iran as Coronavirus Spreads. Retrieved from https://fair.org/home/media-struggle-to-defend-washingtons-cruelty-toward-venezuela-and-iran-as-coronavirus-spreads/
Reeves, P. (2020, April 10). Many Venezuelan Hospitals Lack Basics To Function, Let Alone Handle COVID-19. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/831569313/many-venezuelan-hospitals-lack-basics-to-function-let-alone-handle-covid-19
Rivera, A. (n.d.). What Is the IMF and How Does It Work? Retrieved from https://www.leftvoice.org/what-is-the-imf-and-how-does-it-work
Jason Hickel. (2019, October 16). Apartheid in the global governance system. Retrieved from https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/10/16/apartheid-in-the-global-governance-system
Georgieva, K., & Imf. (2020, April 9). Confronting the Crisis: Priorities for the Global Economy. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/04/07/sp040920-SMs2020-Curtain-Raiser
Jakes, L. (2020, March 31). U.S. Counts on Global Crises to Press Again for Power Shift in Venezuela. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/world/americas/coronavirus-venezuela-maduro-guaido.html?emci=8cbb9437-6273-ea11-a94c-00155d03b1e8&emdi=ba9cc165-6273-ea11-a94c-00155d03b1e8&ceid=4607783
Nugent, C. (2019, April 16). Inside the Battle to Get News to Venezuelans. Retrieved from https://time.com/5571504/venezuela-internet-press-freedom/
Mccoy, J. (2013). Presidential Elections in Venezuela. The Carter Center. Retrieved from https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/peace_publications/election_reports/venezuela-pre-election-rpt-2013.pdf
Ostrow, T. (2019, April 30). Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela. Retrieved from https://fair.org/home/zero-percent-of-elite-commentators-oppose-regime-change-in-venezuela/
Noam Chomsky Quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/noam_chomsky_143312
Rankings. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://worldinfigures.com/rankings/topic/9
Bruenig, M. (2018, March 14). The State Owns 76% of Norway's Non-Home Wealth. Retrieved from https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/03/14/the-state-owns-76-of-norways-non-home-wealth/
Gowan, P., Frase, P., Beggs, M., Majumdar, N., Billet, A., & Bruenig, M. (n.d.). Why We Need a Social Wealth Fund. Retrieved April 23, 2020, from https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/social-wealth-fund-alaska-peoples-policy-project
Venezuelan cash is almost worthless, but also scarce. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2018/07/12/venezuelan-cash-is-almost-worthless-but-also-scarce
Zeballos-Roig, J. (2020, April 4). Here's why the depleted cruise line industry will be one of the biggest losers of the new $500 billion corporate bailout program. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-lines-coronavirus-corporate-bailout-program-economy-trump-2020-4
Harvey, J. T. (2012, May 24). Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation! Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/#9612c9542f58
Furgusson, A. (2010). When Money Dies. Public Affairs.
Lawler, A. (2019, April 10). Venezuela reports collapse in oil supply, tightening global market: OPEC. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-opec-report/venezuela-reports-collapse-in-oil-supply-tightening-global-market-opec-idUSKCN1RM1BT
Armas, M. (2019, March 14). In Venezuela, not even the dollar is immune to effects of hyperinflation. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-inflation/in-venezuela-not-even-the-dollar-is-immune-to-effects-of-hyperinflation-idUSKCN1QV38P
Wamsley, L. (2019, February 8). Humanitarian Aid Arrives For Venezuela - But Maduro Blocks It. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/02/08/692698637/humanitarian-aid-arrives-for-venezuela-but-maduro-blocks-it
Mcmanus, D. (1987, May 19). Use of Humanitarian Aid Flights to Arm Contras Told. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-05-19-mn-1157-story.html
Goodman, A. (2019). Venezuela Accuses U.S. of Secretly Shipping Arms After Weapons Found on Plane with Possible CIA Ties. Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2019/2/13/venezuela_accuses_us_of_secretly_shipping
Open Secrets, Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever. (2009, July 16). Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and/