Sucks.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2026
136 points (96.6% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14499 readers
686 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
another case of hexbear users reading a headline and then making assumptions. they are talking about privatizing non-essential assets which are derelict factories that have been unable to be productive due to sanctions.
all of the oil, gas, and mineral contracts are temporary leases from the state owned company, not privatized. maybe you all should try to read and investigate things before jumping to conclusions, for once.
I've read 1000 headlines by the time you've read 4 articles. I've made 200 posts by the time you've typed out one. I've advanced the dialectic with discourse before you've even comprehended the contradictions.
I don't even consciously type anymore, posts emanate from my body's electrical field to every logged-in device in my presence. Pure data flowing from the internet, to me, back to the internet. I have converted my consciousness to content. I think online, existing offline only as biological processes that soon, too, will be digitized in the info-cycle.
Nice to meet a shitpost Guild Navigator.
Tooooo truuueee
I notice they didn't even bother posting a link to the article. It's almost like they know the article just states that this isn't actually the big scary thing the headline makes it out to be and is just part of the "agreements" forced onto them by the US in April.
https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/venezuela-rodriguez-pledges-to-return-nationalized-assets-to-former-owners/
And even then the headline is just "Politician says words." Not "Politician signs action into law" or anything like that. It was just a random soundbite from a speech she gave. And the actual quote:
So this isn't even a thing that is happening, it's an "evaluation" of which non-essential state assets might get returned to some complaining American gusano to shut the yanks up for a bit. Shitty situation? Sure, but every time these people act like she's some grand backstabbing mustache twirling evil villain, but don't actually bother to investigate, just read an inflammatory headline. And every time it turns out less that she's some evil villain doing pointlessly evil things (that the people of the country don't oppose for some reason) and more that Venezuela has a gun to their head and is trying to do the bare minimum to keep the yanks happy and bide their time.
If the people of the country support (or tolerate) what is happening, then that's what we should be looking towards. That's what matters here. Not this Great ~~Man~~ Woman theory bullshit where she is personally tearing down everything good because she's an evil villain and the people of Venezuela aren't as alert and aware as ME, the superior western armchair leftist and so they just don't notice.
Venezuela has a gun to their head and they're complying to minimize damage rather than have the country devastated by an American war. It's hard for me to imagine many of their industries doing well after their country has been bombed like Vietnam or Korea. Selling some industry to the Americans and surviving seems like the less bad of two awful options.
at this point I think the big thing is that this is just a forum with regular libs on it, despite there being some undercurrent of serious Marxists who are applying a standard of analysis that is frankly unimaginable to non-Marxists.
These people live on headlines, its all they've ever read. Even their self identity as leftists is based on the headlines, quotes, and snippets without ever seriously attempting to study and understand. They haven't ever organized, they have barely read a book, its all just ideas in their head which have no basis in a real, material world. Stumbling across this forum and making an account is not hard, neither is deciding you are a leftist without a coherent idea of what that implies.
to expect them to read words and interpret them as they are without instantly applying their head canon is too much. they don't want to be accurate, they want to be right, and since they've already decided that Venezuela is a colony and that every Venezuelan is an idiot, to admit they don't know shit and don't have any grounds to speak on it would be a step towards personal accountability that is out of the question. Being a better person is out of the question.
I don't think people upset about perceived/imagined capitulation to US empire can or should be characterized as libs.
That's an ultra position. As far as they're concerned, any retreat from full communism is a betrayal.
I mention the ultras in my response to the next comment. I think there are both libs and ultras here, but in some ways I think ultras are libs too because instead of applying a materialist analysis they are being idealists. they are dogmatically trying to apply ideas they have no experience with, not realizing that the ideas aren't universal for every material circumstance. it is liberal in the combat liberalism sense
The key difference is that ultras can read combat liberalism and conclude that Rodríguez is a liberal they need to combat.
I really don't they can be put in the same group. These are not opinions borne from passivity or indifference or personal interests or opportunism or half-heartedness or pride, they come from feeling indignant at every retreat as if it is counter-revolutionary and harming the interests of the masses. In fact, they engage with strategic retreats as if they are combating liberalism.
misinterpreting a text to fit it into your prescribed worldview is liberalism. thinking that you can read a book written in China and apply it to Venezuela without being a member of the Venezuelan revolutionaries who have an understanding of their own material conditions is liberalism. Book worship is liberalism. Thinking that you have any right to feel indignant about a situation you created in your head is liberalism. Thinking that a strategic retreat is liberalism, is also liberalism.
ultras are almost always people who have no direct experience with organizing in general, but particularly with the subjects they are trying to opine about. thinking you know about a place you've never been, a people you've never met, a history you've never studied, is, well you get it
edit:
just want to be extra clear, if you read combat liberalism and then conclude that a person in a country you've never been to and have no relationship to or knowledge of is a liberal you need to combat, you have a parasocial relationship with that person and it is a sign that you need real help. Mao was talking to Chinese communists about their work together in China. If you think Mao was talking to you, a (probably white) person in 2026, about Delcy Rodriguez, you have fully given up on reality
Honestly, I didn't take any of that away from combat liberalism. Mao mostly described feckless weasels and backbiters and prideful little worms that go-along-to-get along and are always looking out for themselves before the masses or the struggle.
The main difference, I think, is liberal types will drag the movement down into liberalism. Ultras won't do that, they'll split and form their own anti-revisionist/anti-liberal/anti-sectarian (lol) splinter group. They're infantile, but present their own distinct problems.
even if this is your only understanding of liberalism, this is describing the ultra themselves for abandoning actual revolutionary struggles they aren't even involved with because of purity testing. people who aren't revolutionaries themselves, deciding that they are more revolutionary than others, but can't be associated with someone less revolutionary, while the alleged less revolutionary people are actually going through a revolutionary process. this is pure idealism, of the liberal variety.
we can look at Venezuela 11 months after the president was abducted and see a unified party supported by a mass, popular movement.
we don't see any cracks in that reality, despite the cracks in the state itself and its geopolitical position, both the consequences of decades of sanctions more than anything.
for one to be so sure that that they are now a neo colony, entirely controlled by the US, and that Delcy specifically (but somehow not all the PSUV and masses behind her) is a unilateral dictator comprador who has handed over Venezuela, they can only be making shit up. these are the actual defended positions of these folks here, for months, and they are 100% unquestionably made up. they have no evidence, just vibes, that is liberalism
I think this is a bit simplistic, plenty of people who I would consider well read and (usually) well researched seem to have fallen into this "She is an evil traitor Great ~~Man~~ Woman personally destroying everything in Venezuela" level of "analysis" of the situation. There's more to it than people just being ignorant and refusing to change their minds.
I think it comes from a place of people being genuinely devastated by the idea that the US can just threaten a socialist country and force them to roll back progress. Or possibly people who see that willingness to work with the US instead of getting their country destroyed as a "betrayal" itself. But this isn't proper analysis, so it leads back into liberalisms like Great Man Theory. I've seen quite a few users strut around declaring victory because the "coping" stopped. I personally have stopped trying to argue with them for the most part since they've obviously not interested in listening or understanding, just declaring the villain of the week and blaming her for all the problems instead of focusing on the US pressuring Venezuela and looking at the Venezuelan people's attitudes towards all this.
It's disheartening to see people whose analytical skills I previously respected fall into this trap, but it's also important to try and figure out why it would happen, why this error in their analysis that has lead them back to simplistic liberal understandings, since there's probably quite a few ways you or I could fall into that same trap if the situation were different (I might've fallen into the same trap if this situation were happening in Cuba for example). We do need to examine and question our own analysis at all times and be willing to change our minds with new information, the only way to combat the liberal in your head.
I just mean people here on hexbear in general. I know comrades IRL who tend to lean towards ultra in some way and are typically well informed but also like to gossip and make quick assumptions. The difference with them is that we are communicating as humans and they are open to being wrong or hasty.
There are some here who are blatantly misinterpreting info, fabricating their facts, editorializing, and getting called out for it which they never acknowledge before just doing it again. They also seem like ultras but in the online version which can never communicate as a human and be open to being wrong or hasty.
If they aren't ultras, they probably have ulterior motives which I won't speculate about. Either way, it is a toxic example of poisoning the well, and manufacturing consent for well meaning leftists to feel like the "normal take" is that Venezuela is cooked. They are actively promoting an idea that we should abandon our support for Venezuela, and to me, this is reactionary. Even if they post other comments on other topics which don't seem reactionary, they are so committed to being wrong about this and spreading verifiable misinformation that it is hard for me to see it differently. This is why I make it a point to always push back, because other people get tired of doing it and I don't want the only narrative here to be one that is anti-internationalism, anti-solidarity, and parroting US state department lines on Venezuela. There are surely well meaning but uninformed people here who deserve both sides, at least.
I agree with this, which is why my position from day 1 has been that I stand with the masses, not the party or the politicians. They are the guide here and they are still behind their government, so I am looking to see why based on what information we have available.
Yeah, while I haven't seen anyone here directly say it, if Venezuelan socialism is "over" they just don't know it yet, then there's no point of any of us trying to help them in whatever way we can. And if it is an evil villain compradore causing it, we don't even need to feel bad about not doing anything, we can just be mad at the evil villain for being evil and enjoy some of that delicious lib righteous anger. I think we've spoken about this before. I don't think anyone on Hexbear is deliberately trying to convince people to abandon any support for Venezuela, but as any of us should know interacting with libs, it doesn't matter how you feel internally about a situation, it's your words and actions about it, the things you actually express to the world that will affect things.
Personally, I'm starting to think that this Delcy stuff started as a psy-op. Convincing people to abandon a socialist country because their leader being an evil traitor to the cause is textbook CIA pushing people into the compatible left. Not that I think anyone on here is a fed, just that they got the ball rolling on this and it has infiltrated a lot of leftist spaces. In every online leftist space I've seen (and many spaces IRL) the main "discussion" about Venezuela has been whether Delcy this one person, is a traitor responsible for destroying Chavismo or not. Not talking about how we can support Venezuela in these tough times, or try to lessen the US pressure against them, or what aid we can provide them or how we can educate non-socialists about the situation. A ideal situation for the feds, getting people to waste time focusing on something irrelevant and idealistic instead of actually focusing on trying to build international solidarity with the people of Venezuela.
And thank you for always pushing back, I've grown too tired of it and since Hexbear isn't an actual org, I don't really see a need to waste my time getting into slapfights. I can deal with libs or someone IRL, but I find it too disheartening to see people on here refusing to change their ways when they're called out for misrepresenting things, deliberately or not.
I've seen a lot of comments saying Venezuelan socialism is over here, starting in Feb or March. It has been so annoying and honestly heartbreaking knowing that material reality for Venezuelans if they are abandoned. A majority of white people on the internet saying Chavismo is dead because they didn't sacrifice enough civilians is hard to see here every other week for almost a year.
Maybe they aren't being deliberate but if not, their addiction to trying to be right is tragic. Trying to be the first one to predict what happens so you can pat yourself on the back and get upvotes is a pathetic and miserable existence, especially when it is trying to call what will ultimately be the death of innocent people.
When Assad got kicked out, there were people here cheering being right about calling it and essentially supporting ISIS in that moment. They were ridiculing Assad like it was a video game, while ignoring the reality of what was about to happen to the people who were now completely vulnerable to endless atrocities. To not see this and just be cheering online is really inhuman, and someone without a heart can ever be a sincere communist.
Yeah, I think the heartbreak is why so many people fall into this way of thinking, it's easier to point at the movie screen and tell the characters "Don't trust her, she's obviously evil!" and then you don't have to feel bad when bad things happen because "You warned them about the scheming Vizier and they didn't listen." It creates a level of detachment and "hollywoodifies" the situation, where they can imagine "what they would do" in that situation, and imagine themselves as a cool movie badass standing up to the bad guys instead of letting them get away with things.
I can see why you were calling them liberals earlier, some of the comments you've gotten could have the username blocked out and they'd be indistinguishable from what libs on Piefed say about Hexbear. I still would push back on calling them liberals a bit, poor analysis leads people to liberalism, rather than people being liberals (like it is an actual trait of theirs) since any of us can behave like a liberal when the circumstances allow it, one of the most important parts of combating liberalism is fighting your inner liberal after all. The most sure fire way to commit acts of liberalism is to think you could never do such a thing yourself because you unironically see yourself as the One True Communist. Which is probably why there is a lot of overlap between liberals and Ultras, come to think of it.
well tbf I'm not typically just saying "liberal liberal liberal" or really being insulting in any direct way. the super majority of my comments are just explaining things, some of these people have even complained in the past about me writing "walls of texts" lol. its usually just in these meta conversations with users like you that I'll try and rationalize what I am experiencing with these folks, including calling them liberals but I mean that in the literal sense. most people who identify as leftists in the west are still liberals, they live in a frame of reference rooted in idealism and metaphysical thinking. they have reached a contradiction where they haven't really thoroughly interrogated that enough to overcome it but that is at odds with their own desire to be perceived as progressive. and they show it over and over again with their own words. after spending real time trying to analyze the situation and actually show why I believe what I do just to be met with the energy they have been bringing to me for almost a year, I can't help but accept that they are really not marxists, they haven't tried to be marxists, they haven't studied marxism, and they definitely won't be reading anything that forces them to have to reflect. it is liberalism, and plenty of self identified leftists will remain actually liberals as long as they can because it benefits them. for those of us who are compelled to fight because we actually are about this shit, we can't afford such a luxury
I didn't mean to imply you're just calling people liberals as an insult, I would just say they're people committing acts of liberalism vs being an actual liberal which is basically just semantics really. We've all seen the libs who will happily go "Umm acktually tankie, I'm a socialist and I hate the US too" as if simply saying a thing magically makes it true, so someone committing an act of liberalism is still supporting liberalism in that moment, even if they wouldn't identify as a liberal. Which I don't think we disagree on, I should've just phrased it better.
I think it is important to differentiate between someone who is liberal because the status quo benefits them and someone who is supporting liberalism because it's just how they were trained to think, because like you say, most western leftists are very liberal, we're trained to think magically and to prioritise idealism over materialism, "feelings over facts"
and this can appear in any of us if we're not careful, like your other conversation with queermunist, Ultras end up ultimately supporting liberal ideas and even the liberal status quo despite feeling like they are as far from liberal as it is possible to get.
I think this differentiation is important because people are prideful, we don't want to admit that we're wrong about things, especially someone currently in the grip of liberal thought processes. To the point that people will double or triple down on being obviously wrong because they just don't want to admit they were wrong. Separating the person from the liberalism can help protect their ego, which makes them more amenable to change, dismissing them as a liberal won't change their mind or get them to consider anything you say and will just have them shout insults at you endlessly. Which to be fair, makes a great point for why people shouldn't agree with them in an argument, since all they have are insults and smug ego stroking and you have your "walls of text" trying to explain the situation and its complexity.
It's a case by case basis thing of course, as you know full well, sometimes people just aren't willing to consider another position.
To bring it back to the topic at hand, the two positions on Venezuela as I understand them are not equal. This is obviously biased in my favour, but I am still trying to consider their position and the idea of "what would things look like if this were true." even if I do scoff at the idea a fair bit.
Our position posits that Venezuela is being threatened by the US and rather than have their country bombed into rubble, they've elected to make concessions to the US that will hurt Venezuela, but will enable them to survive and minimize their suffering. This may end up eroding Chavismo and ultimately destroying it and the Venezuelan socialist experiment, but the government of the country has determined that some sacrifices are better than potentially losing millions of lives in a devastating war.
OR
Their position posits that Venezuela's acting President is a comprador to the US who may or may not have helped orchestrate Maduro's kidnapping in order to gather more power for herself, whether or not she did, she is now the leader of the country and acting in direct opposition to the Venezuelan people, with the goal of destroying Chavismo and the Venezuelan socialist experiment. How such a comprador managed to get so high up in a communist party is just left up to our imaginations, she's a cunning villain and hid her power level until now when she has gone full mask off. The Venezuelan people are powerless and unable to do anything to stop her, as is the rest of her party. Alternatively, the rest of the party is in on it, which means Maduro was the only thing holding Venezuela together, like how when a medieval kingdom has a good king but then his usurper is a bad king and everything falls apart. Or we could use The Lion King as an example of how this stuff happens. This does not explain how the masses of people in Venezuela tolerate these changes, or why the right wing American compradors in Venezuela are still complaining and demanding the US overthrow the government, though to be fair, they do like to complain about everything.
The alternative version of their position is that Delcy is being threatened by the US and is scared for her life, and is not a sinister scheming Vizier, but a weak coward, destroying her country on behalf of the US because she's too cowardly to stand up to them, this has the same problems as the previous one though, with the people tolerating this and the rest of her cabinet doing nothing, but it at least acknowledges the US's participation in all this.
--
So who knows what's really true? Reality is subjective and anything could be possible, we could both be completely wrong and this is a scheme by the Martians to take over Earth or something.
yeah we do agree on that, but after a certain amount of time of dealing with liberals and acts of liberalism as a dedicated marxist, you do start to notice that people who are consistently doing acts of liberalism are rather committed to the bit and not serious in their practice. again, this is most people's norm, but most people aren't LARPing as communists while doing liberal shit over and over again.
I think you've summed it up nicely.
in regard to talking to libs about being libs, yeah I would agree that what you are talking about is important in an organizing context, and I would say that is the position from where I begin my interactions with everyone here. after someone shows their whole ass and then refuses to contend with anyone pushing back, they are revealing themselves to be wreckers and deserve nothing. in an organizing context, we would just cut that person off from the work because they are a risk, but on the internet I feel justified in explaining why these people suck, if not only for the viewers at home
That's a good point, I guess I view Hexbear more a shitposting place, to just relax and not worry too (oh shit, am I the problem?) so I don't really want to spend my time here pointing out the same tired arguments and misrepresentation over and over again. I'll tap out pretty quickly, since I don't really want to spend what I would view as leisure time arguing with someone who is being disingenuous.
I respect that and don't expect anyone to adopt my masochistic tendencies
I quite like the discussion of these ideas and people, and the analysis of why they are saying what they are saying though. I think it's important, the closest Hexbear can get to a "self-criticism" sort of discussion. Helps me focus and understand my own views and reconsider them if necessary.
In a weird way, I also think it's cope for having supported Maduro. I still can't come up with any good analysis that implicates Rodriguez but not Maduro. So much of "Rodriguez betrayed Chavismo" analysis ends with "this actually started under Maduro" if you dig deep enough, and if they were more intellectually honest, they would go, "Maduro betrayed Chavismo."
I think we can have serious discussions of what constraints Chavez had to deal with that neither Maduro nor Rodriguez could overcome or how Venezuela's proximity to the US mean that any Venezuelan socialist project will always be compromised. But someone who's blaming Rodriguez while ignoring Maduro isn't doing serious analysis. It's like someone who thinks the new houseowner who has only owned the house for a week before it collapsed should be blamed for the house collapsing and not the previous owner who has owned the house for more than two decades. They want the W for predicting a Rodriguez betrayal but not the L of having supported Maduro for the past 7+ years.
I've noticed a lot of lionizing of Maduro, glazing of him since he was kidnapped. Before this happened discussions about Venezuela tended to be about his limited reach and struggles and even inability to fix Venezuela's problems, but that has completely fallen by the wayside and Venezuela has ceased to be a "place" with actual material conditions to these people and is an abstract "idea" which is constantly being destroyed over and over so they can rage at the injustice of it all, if only the noble Good King Maduro remained instead of the evil usurper Delcy, then all would be right in the world. But at least we can be Right about it, and get the sense of satisfaction from being Right about things.
I do think they will eventually have to admit either Maduro was just as flawed as the rest of his government, and the problems Venezuela faces didn't start in January and history didn't start on January 3rd. We might've spoken about this before, but if they do end up going down that route, I predict a declaration that Venezuela was either "never really socialist" or was betrayed after Chavez.
Though I think their current idea that Delcy is an evil usurper of the Venezuelan throne is comfortable enough and they'll stick with it for quite a while, especially if Chavismo collapses in the short term. It fulfills uncomfortable holes in their feelings towards the situation, because what is happening in Venezuela is awful, and we can't do anything to directly stop the US interfering with them, but it's easy to paper over that with "that comprador regime deserves it." when bad things happen.
1000%
Chavismo has always been a weak cause, a social democratic movement born primarily out of the ballot box, although they did have to fight in the streets for it on many occasions they never had a full revolution.
I have been saying this all year, if you think Rodriguez is a new element suddenly changing course then you haven't ever looked into the subject and probably don't have any right to speak on it.
Maduro was already trying to do most of what Rodriguez is doing, he already was inviting foreign capital in from the US, he already did an amnesty law for opposition forces and even began the process of making the new one before the abduction, and most importantly neither he nor chavez sufficiently drove their economic diversification to be more self sufficient and less reliant on oil exports.
These are legacy problems that Rodriguez inherited, not new things she just decided to do a few months ago. They aren't even trying to have a material analysis and have consistently made up evidence so I guess wreckers gonna wreck.
Maduro did realize after years of sanctions to start empowering the commune movement, to his credit, and we see that vein being supported more each year. I personally want to see that continue and won't disparage the people doing it against all odds while being under siege.
In another article of theirs I found this about the commission that re-evaluates state assets: https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/venezuela-installs-commission-to-evaluate-state-assets-mulls-possible-sell-offs/
The question then becomes where the line is for a "strategic" asset. In the article a consultant suggests steel and cement as sectors that can see (partial) privatisation, perhaps the "derelict factories" you refer to.
From what I understand there has already been an unstable mix of state and private control in various primary sectors, a tug-of-war that the PSUV wasn't able to overcome before a 10+ year string of crises and sanctions put the "Venezualan path to socialism" on shaky ground (sometimes literally). So this would be more like a shittier version of the status quo rather than a full 180, in my view.
My overall impression of Rodriguez' government is of one backed into a corner and determining itself too weak for maintaining the status quo and gambling with concessions to build up better conditions and morale. Hence viewing themselves as Lenin with Brest-Litovsk or Deng with Reform and Opening Up. The fate of that gamble is uncertain and will also determine if Chavismo failed in its bet on bending the bourgeois state rather than overthrowing it, as that rendered it vulnerable when the crises hit.
All we can look to is what we know, and unfortunately there has been little detail made publicly available. What we do know, is that they are clearly differentiating between what they think is important to keep and what they are willing to sacrifice in order to be seen as "changed enough" to continue getting sanctions lifted, economic stimulus, infrastructure repair, and they are openly trying to get the gold back as well. They are absolutely backed in a corner but they are pretty clearly negotiating from a position that still maintains a desire to get something that will benefit Venezuela, which we've already seen in their ability to turn back on entire electricity plants that had been shuttered due to sanctions, restoring electricity that has been unstable for years to millions of people. They have already rebuilt and repaired hundreds of homes since the earthquakes. They have stabilized inflation, increased economic input, and made a lot of promises that they seem keen on delivering.
As far as what each asset is, the only public articles I've seen so far have said that every oil, gas, and mineral contract so far as been a lease, as well as the only factories I've seen mentioned. Every single one is described as a 15-30 year contract which essentially means a private company is going to rebuild and repair industry that has been shut down because of sanctions, or build new infrastructure. In every case, the lease is with the state company. This is all the info I've been able to find, if someone else sees any evidence of anything specific being privatized, we can look at it when it happens. China has private businesses, small businesses, factory owners, etc. A country decimated by decades of sanctions bringing in private investment to non-essential assets isn't the death knell of a movement made up of millions of people.