�鶹��ý

Steve Ellner is an Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives and a retired professor of the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela. In the second part of our interview, �鶹��ý’s Federico Fuentes spoke to Ellner about opposition to United States imperialism and how this should factor into the left’s appraisal of the Nicolás Maduro government in Venezuela. Read part 1 here.

* * *

Does prioritising anti-US imperialism mean the left should turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of governments under attack from US imperialism?��

No, they should not.

Some on the left say otherwise. They say the left in the Global North should not criticise progressive Global South governments and that its sole duty or role is to oppose imperialist intervention.

But criticism of errors is essential and nobody can, or should, question the right of anybody to formulate criticisms.

However, those who are critical need to seriously consider the knotty issue of how and when to criticise anti-imperialist governments or other governments under attack from US imperialism.

One way to look at it is to consider that freedom of speech is not an absolute principle — it depends on the circumstances. In certain situations, such as wartime, there are limitations.

The same can be applied to strategic decisions by solidarity activists regarding criticisms of the governments they are defending.

What about a country such as Venezuela, which is not engaged in a military war with US imperialism and where there are clearly different approaches towards its government on the left?

Venezuela has been in a war-type situation for many years.

Prior to [former President Hugo] Chávez, no Venezuelan economist would have imagined that if the country could not export oil the government would survive for more than a week. That is exactly what the sanctions are all about.

On top of that you have had assassination attempts against the president, months of violent regime-change disturbances, an invasion by mercenaries from Colombia, an attempted coup and abundant evidence of sabotage, including through cybernetics.

These were all engineered or actively supported by the US.

Some left analysts fault Maduro for taking off the gloves and not abiding by the norms of liberal democracy. In some cases, the criticisms are valid but they have to be contextualised.

The issue is that often criticisms are seen as “aiding” US imperialism’s campaign against Venezuela. Are there no limits when it comes to muting criticisms?

You have to draw a line in the sand. Electoral fraud, for instance, is unacceptable.

Furthermore, no criticism should be vetoed, it is just a question of context; that is, under what circumstances do you formulate the criticism.

In addition, we have to recognise that certain situations constitute grey areas in which left analysts cannot be certain of all the facts. In those cases, we can only make educated guesses and need to recognise there are important gaps in what we know that cannot be easily filled.

The left has to make an effort to define these grey areas to distinguish what we know for certain.

For instance, after the first sanctions were imposed on Venezuela with the [Barack] Obama executive order in early 2015, and then scaled up by the [Donald] Trump administration, which called for a military coup, one grey area was the Venezuelan military.

There was no way for an analyst who lacked inside information to really know what options Maduro had. The calls for a military coup by the world’s foremost military power undoubtedly strengthened the hands of Diosdado Cabello, the number two man who has close ties with the military and does not have Maduro’s leftist background.

It is easy to say Maduro should have responded to the threats by radicalising the process, which is what several Venezuelan Trotskyist parties advocated. Maduro went in the opposite direction by making concessions to the private sector. As a result, .

But what if, in the name of holding onto state power, electoral fraud is committed? How should the left deal with this?

As I said above, electoral fraud needs to be ruled out, and for various reasons not just ethical ones.

But in the case of Venezuela there are complex issues. For example, a victory for the opposition would most likely have resulted in a bloodbath against the Chavistas and others as well.

The candidacy of Edmundo González was deceptive because he was a mere puppet; the real candidate was María Corina Machado. Some analysts pointed to González’s conciliatory tone, but he was not and is not calling the shots — everybody knows that.

If you look at Machado’s statements over the years, you will see her plan was to “neutralise” Chavismo, a euphemism for Pinochet-style repression that goes beyond the organised left.

Recognising how formidable the challenges facing the Chavista leadership are can help break down the divide between those on the left who claim fraud was committed and those who do not.

I am not saying the issue of the July 28 elections should be swept under the rug or placed on the back burner. But the discussion should not get in the way of the larger issue, which is US imperialism and recognising that the Maduro government’s errors have to be contextualised.

Its errors, to a large degree, are erroneous reactions to US imperialism. That, however, is not to minimise the gravity of the errors or to absolve leaders of responsibility for committing them.

Where does this leave us more generally? There will always be certain issues that we cannot be too sure of. Does this mean we can throw certain issues into the too-hard basket?

I am certainly not proposing there are many truths. No, there is only one truth and we should strive to know what it is.

But at the same time, we should attempt to determine grey areas, where we recognise we cannot come up with definitive conclusions because not all the facts are clear. In situations like this, we should be especially tolerant of opposing views on the left.

I am also not saying that July 28 is one of those “grey areas”. But I am saying that much of what led up to July 28 consists of grey areas. One example that I gave was the situation within the Venezuelan armed forces, which may have limited Maduro’s options.

For this reason, I am in favour of greater tolerance between pro-Maduro Chavistas and many of their left critics — as difficult as that may be.

[Abridged from a longer interview at .]