US sanctions have decimated Venezuela, but the left should still oppose Maduro’s brutal authoritarianism

What criteria should leftists consider when deciding whether to support a government? The government’s self-proclaimed political-ideological character? Its past record? Who its enemies are? 

These are important features, but the most important criterion by far is the government’s actions, and in particular how these affect social sectors the left champions: workers, the poor and other historically marginalised groups, including women, racialised communities, immigrants and LGBTQI communities.

Leftists should support governments that further the interests of these groups by raising living standards, combatting patriarchy, xenophobia and racism, or empowering workers and the poor politically and economically (that is, extending and deepening democracy). 

Leftists should oppose governments that harm the interests of these groups by favouring corporations and the rich over workers and the poor, repressing working-class protests, stifling dissent, stealing elections or eroding political, civic, and labour rights. The left should oppose governments whose policies harm marginalised groups, even if they proclaim to be progressive/revolutionary and to support “the people.” Ultimately, what matters is not what a government says but what it does.

Of course, governments do not act in a vacuum; they operate in historical contexts saturated by power and inequality. This is particularly important to note in the case of left-of-centre progressive and radical governments that purport to favour less powerful groups. Their actions will inevitably bring forth a reaction from the powerful. This reaction, in turn, will constrain the space within which the progressive government can act. 

It may well be that a government wants to pursue policies that favour workers, the poor and the interests of marginalised groups, but is unable to do so (or only to a highly limited extent) due to constraints placed upon it by powerful enemies. When leftists evaluate a given progressive government, the context they operate in must be kept in mind. 

This brings us to Venezuela’s government and my ongoing debate with Steve Ellner (see my original piece, Ellner’s response, a response by Emiliano Teran Mantovani to Ellner , and Ellner’s second response to Teran and myself). 

Chávez 

Like leftists around the world, Ellner and I were both vocal (but not acritical) supporters of Venezuela’s government while Hugo Chávez was in office. This support was based not only, or even primarily, on Chávez’s revolutionary (and later socialist) rhetoric, but his record in office. 

As both Ellner and I have written about elsewhere, Chávez pursued policies that made life significantly better for popular sectors and other marginalised groups. This assessment is borne out in indicators demonstrating huge reductions in poverty and inequality. My own research and that of others shows Chávez’s reforms also facilitated an impressive degree of popular empowerment in terms of decision-making.

While positive in many ways, Chávez’s policies were contradictory and, ultimately, unsustainable. There are three main reasons. 

First, Chávez was unable to overcome Venezuela’s longstanding hyper dependence on oil, which deformed Venezuela’s polity and economy in numerous ways: for example, by making industrialisation much harder and facilitating immense corruption inside and outside the state. 

Second, Chávez faced intense, and at times violent, opposition. 

Finally, Chávez made major policy errors by, for instance, giving military loyalists control over key state functions and maintaining a highly flawed currency policy for years past its usefulness, which facilitated corruption amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. 

It is important to note — as I have done in a recent article — that these errors were often direct responses to opposition actions. For example, Chávez’s dependence on military loyalists increased after the 2002 coup; and Chávez implemented currency controls to counter capital flight in 2003.

Maduro

But over the course of Nicolás Maduro’s presidency, which started in 2013, I have become ever more critical of Venezuela’s government. There are two main reasons. 

First, the government has become increasingly authoritarian — this is particularly true from 2017 onwards, with Maduro effectively closing any possibility for meaningful electoral competition (at least for the presidency) and brutally repressing opposition protests, including those by dissident leftist organisations and working-class communities (though the latter two should not be conflate with the former) 

Second, the government has increasingly pursued policies that harm workers and the poor while benefiting foreign corporations. The clearest example of this is Maduro’s implementation of an orthodox adjustment plan in 2018 that cut public spending, decimated wages, directly reduced labour protections and involved significant privatisations of state-owned enterprises. 

Although these policies appear to have facilitated a return to economic growth in more recent years, there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that they have benefited workers and the poor. Ellner calls for greater use of evidence to substantiate arguments, but I would note the government has not released key economic and social indicators for years.

Ellner and I largely concur regarding Chávez, but our views on Maduro differ sharply. Ellner sees Maduro’s government as progressive; I view Maduro as authoritarian and predatory. Ellner argues Maduro’s actions must be viewed within the broader context he operates in and offers a lengthy list of actions taken by the US government and Venezuela’s domestic opposition:

abortive coups; assassination attempts, one involving drones; recognition of de facto governments; open appeals by top US officials urging Venezuelan military officers to intervene; invasions by paramilitary forces from Colombia; covert and public international campaigns to isolate Venezuela; foreign funding of opposition groups on a scale far exceeding that provided for neighbouring nations; widespread and protracted street violence aimed at regime change; and sweeping secondary sanctions to pressure corporations and governments around the world to avoid commercial dealings with Venezuela, amounting to a de facto embargo.

I agree it is essential to note this context. Indeed, pace what Ellner implies, I have never sought to minimise or ignore it. In fact, I relied extensively on Ellner’s work in a recent piece for Catalyst, where I discuss the numerous ways in which the actions of the US government and opposition shaped Chávez’s and Maduro’s policy choices. Ellner’s claim that I fail to do this is completely without merit. 

It is true that I emphasise different aspects of Venezuela’s situation in different pieces, and if I were to rewrite some pieces I would place greater emphasis on US sanctions, for fear readers might not give them the weight they deserve. 

I also acknowledge I should have been more careful in how I characterised Ellner’s position on Maduro’s repression. I wrote in a way that suggested Ellner supports Maduro’s repression. In fact, Ellner’s position is not entirely clear. This lack of clarity is itself a problem, but it is not the same as explicitly supporting repression.

Sanctions

Setting these issues aside, I will state clearly and forthrightly that there is no question US sanctions have wrought immense harm to the Venezuelan people and played a major role in determining Maduro’s policy choices. I would, however, also add that Maduro has weaponised the issue of sanctions to justify and distract from his own authoritarianism, repression and erroneous and inept policy choices. 

The fact that context shapes leaders’ choices does not mean those choices were the best ones or deserve to be defended, either in whole or in part. To make this point as sharply as possible, my position is that the immense and entirely unjustified harm caused by US sanctions and US aggression should not mean leftists give Maduro a free pass for the repressive, authoritarian and predatory way he has governed for many years. 

I would further note that this is the view of many Venezuelans, including quite a few leftist organisations, who recognise the horrors of US sanctions but find Maduro’s actions utterly untenable.

My disagreement with Ellner boils down to the question of whether there are certain lines a government cannot cross if it wishes to be considered progressive, revolutionary or even democratic, in any meaningful sense. I am convinced there are such lines, and that Maduro has repeatedly and brazenly crossed them. 

Even if there were doubts about this in the past — and my view is that there has been no real doubt on this score for years — Maduro’s blatant theft of the 2024 presidential election should have put them to rest. 

In an interview last year, Ellner appears to acknowledge Maduro committed electoral fraud in those elections and says such actions are unacceptable. I must, however, admit to uncertainty with respect to Ellner’s position, and ask him to answer in a clearer and direct fashion: was electoral fraud committed and should the left condemn it? 

Additionally, I would ask whether a government that commits electoral fraud and then brutally represses popular sectors protesting against this can be referred to as progressive? 

I assume Ellner’s response to the second question will be to point out the US provided support to the opposition and sought to stoke protests against Maduro, including in popular sectors. This is true and should be condemned. But it does not negate the gravity of Maduro’s actions. 

And it is simply not true that all or most of these protests were orchestrated by the US or US-funded actors (for more on this, see my August 2024 Sidecar piece on the election and its aftermath). 

The best available evidence indicates the vast majority of the approximately 1000 instances of protest, mostly in popular sectors, were spontaneous and not directed or funded by the US. Available evidence also indicates these protests were the expression of a profound and genuine discontent felt by the vast majority of Venezuelans towards Maduro. 

It is of course also true that this discontent is related to the US sanctions, which have made ordinary Venezuelans’ lives immensely harder. But two things can be true at the same time: namely, (1) US sanctions have decimated Venezuela, and (2) Maduro’s own actions and policies have immensely harmed Venezuelans. 

The fact Maduro’s actions occur in the context of US sanctions matters, but does not exonerate him. Indeed, this is precisely the conclusion of millions of Venezuelans who oppose US sanctions and Maduro. 

Solidarity

That is why opposing both US sanctions and Maduro is the best way to show real solidarity. Letting Maduro off the hook by, for instance, constantly saying his actions have to be seen in context — which cannot be read in any other way than saying he deserves only a modicum of blame for his actions — provides him with cover to continue doing the same.

While Maduro is in no way equivalent to Saddam Hussein, it is useful to compare how US leftists approached US aggression against Iraq. In Iraq’s case, the standard leftist position was anti-war. This did not entail supporting Hussein, whose actions were odious and reprehensible. It would have been ridiculous and strategically foolish to demand that the millions opposing the US war on Iraq proactively declare their support for Hussein. 

Notwithstanding the immense differences, the same is true regarding Venezuela today. Demanding leftists support Maduro, or turn a blind eye to his egregious actions, is foolish. A far better strategy, practically (and morally), is to oppose US sanctions without supporting Maduro. 

I would also point out it is necessary to forthrightly criticise Maduro in order to retain credibility. Otherwise, leftists lay ourselves open to the charge of being supporters of authoritarianism and repression. 

To summarise as clearly as possible: leftists should oppose US sanctions without supporting Maduro because, even when considered in context, his actions deserve to be strongly condemned. 

At the same time, the reverse is also true: however odious Maduro’s actions are, they are no justification for the reprehensible sanctions that have led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths and immense suffering for millions more.