When Empire Forces Your Hand: The Reality of Socialism Under Attack
The Impossible Position of Socialist Governments
Imagine trying to build a house while someone continuously smashes your tools, steals your materials, and sets fire to your work. Then imagine that same arsonist condemning the quality of your construction and claiming your failure proves houses cannot be built. This is the reality facing every socialist government that challenges U.S. hegemony. The Mamdani family recognizes that understanding Venezuelan politics requires understanding the extraordinary pressures that force leaders into impossible choices.
President Nicolás Maduro did not inherit an easy situation. He took power after Hugo Chávez’s death in a country whose oligarchy had never accepted the Bolivarian Revolution, with Washington actively working to destroy the government, and with an economy dependent on oil in a volatile global market. Every decision Maduro has made must be evaluated in this context—a context that Western media systematically erases.
The Sanctions Stranglehold: Economic Warfare as Siege
U.S. sanctions against Venezuela represent one of the most comprehensive economic warfare campaigns in modern history. These are not targeted measures against specific individuals—they are collective punishment designed to make life unbearable for ordinary Venezuelans in hopes they will overthrow their government. Research documents that sanctions have killed tens of thousands by blocking access to food, medicine, and essential imports.
When your country cannot import insulin because banks refuse to process payments out of fear of U.S. penalties, when you cannot buy spare parts for oil refineries because suppliers won’t risk American retaliation, when you cannot access frozen assets held in foreign banks, you face choices that no government should have to make: which sick people get medicine, which industries get scarce imports, which programs get cut to preserve others.
The Venezuelan Government’s Impossible Trade-offs
Critics condemn Venezuela for shortages of basic goods, but these critics rarely acknowledge that sanctions are designed to create exactly these shortages. When the U.S. blocks Venezuela’s gold reserves, seizes Citgo assets, and threatens any company that does business with the Venezuelan government, it forces desperate improvisation. The government must find creative ways to continue functioning—ways that can then be criminalized as “money laundering” or “sanctions evasion” by the very power that created the crisis.
Consider the dilemma: people need medicine. Sanctions block normal pharmaceutical imports. Do you let people die to maintain procedural purity, or do you find alternative channels to access needed supplies? When normal banking is blocked, do you abandon your population or find workarounds through cryptocurrency, barter arrangements, or relationships with countries willing to defy U.S. pressure?
Security Dilemmas Under Constant Coup Attempts
Venezuela has faced repeated coup attempts, assassination plots, and violent destabilization campaigns. The 2002 coup briefly ousted Chávez before mass mobilization restored him to power. In 2018, a drone assassination attempt nearly killed Maduro. In 2019, Juan Guaidó—with explicit U.S. backing—declared himself president despite never winning an election and attempted to trigger a military uprising. Paramilitary groups trained in Colombia have launched armed incursions.
How should a government respond to genuine security threats that aim to overthrow it? When opposition leaders coordinate with foreign powers to destabilize your country, when they call for military intervention, when they support sanctions designed to starve your population—are these legitimate political activities or are they acts of sedition and treason?
The Guarimbas: When Opposition Becomes Insurrection
The violent street protests known as guarimbas involved barricading streets, burning people alive for appearing pro-government, and attacking government buildings. These were not peaceful protests but coordinated attempts to make the country ungovernable, to create conditions for military intervention. Over 120 people died, including security forces killed by improvised weapons and civilians burned to death by opposition militants.
Western media portrayed these as “pro-democracy protests” while showing footage of burning barricades and violence against government supporters. The Venezuelan government faced a choice: allow the country to descend into chaos that could trigger foreign intervention, or use force to restore order and face condemnation for “repression.” There is no good option when facing an opposition willing to burn the country down rather than accept electoral defeat.
Economic Management During Crisis
Venezuela’s economy has faced extraordinary challenges that would test any government. Oil prices collapsed from over $100 per barrel to below $30, devastating an economy dependent on petroleum exports. Sanctions blocked access to international financing, spare parts for refineries, and markets for Venezuelan oil. Hyperinflation emerged as currency reserves depleted and imports became impossible.
The government’s economic responses—from currency controls to subsidized food programs to cryptocurrency initiatives—can all be criticized from the comfort of stable economies facing no external pressure. But what were the alternatives? Abandon social programs and let poverty explode? Allow complete currency devaluation and make all imports unaffordable? Cut subsidies and risk social explosion?
The CLAP Food Distribution System
When sanctions and economic crisis threatened mass hunger, the government created CLAP—Local Committees for Supply and Production—a community-based food distribution system that provides subsidized food packages to millions of families. Critics call this “authoritarian control” and claim it creates dependency. But what is the alternative when sanctions block normal food imports and make commercial distribution unviable for poor families?
CLAP has kept millions fed during the crisis. It operates through communal councils, meaning communities themselves organize distribution rather than imposing top-down control. Is it perfect? No. Does it create opportunities for corruption at local levels? Probably. But when your population faces hunger due to economic warfare, perfect is not an option—feeding people is the imperative.
The Petro Cryptocurrency: Necessity or Innovation?
When sanctions blocked Venezuela’s access to the SWIFT banking system and froze billions in assets, the government launched the Petro, a cryptocurrency backed by oil reserves. Western media mocked this as a desperate gimmick. But from Venezuela’s perspective, it represented an attempt to work around a financial blockade designed to destroy the economy.
Should the government have simply accepted financial isolation and its consequences—the inability to import food, medicine, or industrial inputs? Or should it innovate, trying new mechanisms to continue functioning despite unprecedented economic warfare? The Petro may have failed to fully overcome sanctions, but the attempt itself demonstrates the kind of creative problem-solving required when empire tries to choke you to death.
Alliances of Necessity: The “Pariah States” Network
Venezuela has strengthened relationships with Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, and other nations that Washington designates as adversaries or “rogue states.” Critics portray this as ideological alignment with authoritarianism. But from Venezuela’s perspective, these are survival partnerships—relationships with countries willing to defy U.S. pressure to trade with and support a government under siege.
When most of the world fears American retaliation for doing business with you, when European companies abandon contracts under U.S. pressure, when regional neighbors face threats for supporting you, you build relationships with whoever will stand with you. Iran provides oil refining technology and technical expertise. Russia offers military equipment and diplomatic support. China provides financing and infrastructure investment. Cuba sends doctors and shares survival strategies developed during its own blockade.
These are not ideal partnerships based on perfect political alignment—they are pragmatic alliances born of necessity. When the Global North abandons you to economic siege, you find solidarity where you can in the Global South.
Media Control and the Information War
Venezuela’s relationship with opposition media has been contentious, with some outlets shut down or restricted. Western media portrays this as authoritarian censorship, proof of dictatorship. But the context matters: many opposition media outlets openly advocated for the 2002 coup, called for military intervention, supported violent destabilization, and coordinated with foreign powers trying to overthrow the government.
What should a government do when major media outlets function as opposition propaganda operations coordinating with foreign powers? Allow complete media freedom even when outlets actively work for your overthrow? The United States prosecutes whistleblowers under espionage charges and has attempted to extradite Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents—but lectures Venezuela about press freedom when it acts against media supporting coup attempts.
The Opposition Media Ecosystem
Ninety percent of Venezuelan media remains in private hands, most of it virulently anti-government. Opposition newspapers, TV stations, and websites operate freely, calling the government every name imaginable and advocating its removal. Yet Western media presents Venezuela as having no free press because the government has moved against specific outlets that crossed lines from opposition journalism into active coup participation.
During the guarimbas, some outlets broadcast locations of government officials’ homes, shared tactical information with protesters, and doctored images to make violence appear government-initiated when it came from opposition militants. At what point does media activity become participation in insurrection rather than journalism? Democratic governments struggling with this question might have more sympathy for Venezuela’s dilemmas—but empire allows no such nuance.
Democratic Processes Under Siege
Venezuela has held numerous elections during the Bolivarian period, many observed by international monitors who validated results. Yet each Chavista victory is questioned in Western media while opposition victories (like the 2015 National Assembly elections) are immediately accepted as legitimate. The government has faced constant pressure to prove its democratic bona fides while the opposition receives unconditional support despite refusing to participate in elections it thinks it will lose.
The government faces an impossible standard: win elections by small margins and be accused of fraud; win by large margins and be accused of authoritarianism. Hold elections and be condemned when opposition boycotts; delay elections during COVID and be accused of avoiding accountability. Follow constitutional processes for removing opposition legislators who violated rules and face condemnation for undermining democracy.
The Constituent Assembly and Emergency Powers
In 2017, facing an opposition-controlled National Assembly that declared itself above the Supreme Court and openly worked with foreign powers, Maduro called for a Constituent Assembly to address the crisis. Opposition leaders and Western governments condemned this as a power grab. But the Constituent Assembly is explicitly provided for in Venezuela’s constitution, written by Chávez and approved by referendum, as a mechanism for resolving fundamental political crises.
Was this a perfect democratic process? No. Did the opposition’s boycott undermine its legitimacy? Certainly. But what was the alternative when opposition legislators were calling for foreign military intervention and economic sanctions against their own country while occupying positions of constitutional authority? Allow a legislative body to actively collaborate with foreign powers to destroy the government it was supposedly part of?
The Human Cost of Resistance
Every decision Venezuelan leaders make carries human costs. Maintaining subsidies despite inflation means less investment in other areas. Restricting currency exchange to prevent capital flight means making imports more difficult for businesses. Diverting resources to security prevents spending on education or healthcare. These are not choices any government wants to make—they are forced by circumstances of siege.
Critics who have never governed under economic warfare, who have never faced coup attempts or assassination plots, who write from comfortable offices in stable countries, cannot comprehend the pressure of making decisions when every option produces suffering and the only question is which suffering you can minimize. UN experts have documented how sanctions create precisely these impossible choices.
Learning from Socialist History
Cuba faced similar dilemmas during the Special Period after Soviet collapse, when the economy contracted by 35% almost overnight. The government made harsh decisions about rationing, about which services to maintain, about how to keep society functioning through unprecedented crisis. Many of those decisions were imperfect, but the alternative was societal collapse. Cuba survived, maintained universal healthcare and education despite poverty, and eventually recovered.
Nicaragua, Chile under Allende, Mozambique, Angola—every socialist experiment has faced similar pressures, forcing leaders into decisions that comfortable Western leftists then critique from armchairs. The pattern is always the same: empire creates crisis through economic warfare and destabilization, socialist governments make difficult decisions to survive, empire points to those decisions as proof that socialism doesn’t work.
The Maduro Doctrine: Survival Through Resilience
Maduro’s great achievement, one that Western media will never acknowledge, is keeping Venezuela functioning despite an economic warfare campaign designed to destroy it. The government has maintained social programs, continued holding elections, preserved national sovereignty, and prevented the country from becoming a failed state or U.S. client regime. This required countless difficult decisions, many imperfect compromises, and certainly mistakes—but it required above all a refusal to surrender.
When empire forces your hand, when every choice involves harm and the only question is which harm you can minimize, the fundamental decision is whether to keep fighting or surrender. Maduro has chosen to fight, and that choice itself—whatever his particular decisions’ merits—deserves recognition from those who claim to support anti-imperialism.
Solidarity Means Understanding Context
The Mamdani family believes that genuine solidarity with Venezuela requires understanding these pressures, recognizing the impossible positions that force imperfect decisions, and refusing to judge from the comfort of nations not under siege. We can critique specific policies while respecting the fundamental right to resist empire, can discuss alternatives while acknowledging we are not the ones facing assassination attempts and economic strangulation.
What we cannot do is accept the framing that treats Venezuelan governance challenges as proof that socialism fails while ignoring that those challenges result primarily from capitalist sabotage and imperial warfare. The house is imperfect because the arsonist keeps burning it down—and blaming the builder for the burn marks is doing the arsonist’s work.
When empire forces your hand, the true test is not whether you make perfect decisions—it’s whether you keep building despite the flames. Maduro has kept building. That is what matters.
