On January 3rd, US imperialism launched a military assault on Venezuela, abducting President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. This operation involved the bombardment of the Fuerte Tiuna and La Carlota military bases in Caracas, the El Volcán signal center, and the port of La Guaira. With the deployment of over 150 warplanes, special forces, and Space Command, it once again demonstrated that imperialist banditry knows no bounds. Undoubtedly, this assault by the US under the leadership of the fascist Trump is no bolt from the blue. The US has pursued an aggressive policy against Venezuela ever since Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, nationalized oil, and adopted an anti-American line. Having kept the country under heavy embargo and pressure for 25 years, the US had been besieging it from sea and air since September 2025, deploying dozens of warships to the Caribbean. It demanded that Maduro– whom it accused of drug trafficking– resign and flee the country. It is patently clear that the abduction of Maduro constitutes an imperialist assault based on naked aggression, recognizing no international rules. It is a shocking act for the Bolivarian administration, Latin America as a whole, and even imperialist powers such as China and Russia.
This display of imperialist banditry by the US in Latin America through Venezuela, in the very first days of 2026, is a harbinger of how the coming days will be shaped. Now, naturally, while everyone tries to define and make sense of Trump’s course of action, the question of what stance to take against this boundless US aggression is also being debated. Of course, our specific concern here is the perspective of the leftist, socialist, and communist movements. While opposing the imperialist banditry of the US and standing with the Venezuelan people –specifically the working class– from what perspective should the socialist movement act, and what line of struggle should it develop? Unfortunately, the stances taken globally are determined not by the revolutionary internationalist line of the working class, but by a nationalist perspective where anti-imperialism is reduced to a shallow anti-Americanism.
Latin America as a theater of the ımperialist war of redivision
It is impossible to grasp US aggression in Latin America –or, for that matter, any major development in the world today– without a perspective that recognizes the deepening crisis of imperialist hegemony and its grim manifestation: a Third World War taking on distinct forms stretching from the Middle East to Ukraine. The current crisis of imperialist hegemony has converged with the fact that capitalism has reached its historical limits and entered an existential crisis; the system’s impasse is generating a tangle of crises, wars, and colossal problems in every field.
The force spearheading this war is US imperialism, whose hegemony has been shaken and which has entered a period of historical decline. Although the imperialist powers have not yet confronted each other directly, they are the active subjects of this Third World War, which is being waged through various means. This war is not fought solely on frontlines where tanks and missiles roar; economic sanctions, trade wars, technological restrictions, coups, and civil wars are merely different forms of this conflict. In Ukraine, the combatants are, in reality, Western imperialism and Russian imperialism. Consequently, while the US-UK-Israel bloc constitutes one pole of this imperialist rivalry –or the Third World War– China and Russia constitute the other, with Iran positioned within the axis of the latter. The dazed and senile European imperialism is also a part of this war, though it is not yet in a position to break free from US control and forge an independent line.
As we have stated many times, the “rules-based order” constructed under the hegemony of US imperialism following the Second World War is bursting at the seams, and the international institutions of this order, including the UN, have been rendered dysfunctional. The old international order has dissolved, yet under the given conditions, it is not yet clear what will replace it. Following the abduction of Maduro, an assessment in The Guardian noted that “with the Maduro operation, Trump has moved from stretching the international order to outright smashing it.” The bourgeoisie worldwide now acknowledges this reality, as the contradictions can no longer be concealed, yet it remains at a loss as to what to do. The conditions for establishing a new order do not exist, and the crisis of hegemony is escalating international economic and political tensions to the extreme.
When Trump spoke of annexing Greenland and Canada at the beginning of 2025, we wrote: “Undoubtedly, by issuing threats of occupation and annexation, Trump intends to intimidate his rivals and implement the policies of US imperialism by signaling his readiness to resort to any form of brute force. However, even if this is the case, the fact that he turns territorial annexation threats into bargaining chips is a result of US imperialism failing to achieve its aims using old methods, despite still being a hegemonic power. Trump is a figure with a merchant mentality who wants to play the game openly, by his own rules. Unlike some segments of the ruling class, he believes that acting as a hegemon and architect of the international order restricts the US in its imperialist rivalry. Therefore, he does not hesitate to act in a way that shatters the international institutions of the imperialist system.”[1]
US imperialism views the entirety of the Americas as its sphere of influence and control–or, to put it more bluntly, its backyard. Throughout the 20th century, it overthrew all leftist or anti-American administrations in the region through military coups and, as seen in Chile in 1973, drowned the growing rage of the working people against the capitalist order in blood. However, intensifying imperialist rivalry and the cooperation of left-nationalist bourgeois administrations –which came to power in Latin America particularly after 2000– with Russia and China have dealt a blow to US hegemony in the region. The US is attempting to change these nationalist-left bourgeois regimes on the continent by organizing military or civilian coups, mobilizing collaborator monopoly bourgeois factions and the petty bourgeoisie under their control, imposing economic embargoes, and issuing threats of aggression; yet numerous attempts in Venezuela failed, and more importantly, the US could not establish the control it desired.
The Trump administration is aware that the US is no longer a hegemonic power that manufactures consent within the framework of absolute international rules. Indeed, Secretary of State Rubio’s declaration accepting multipolarity is not without reason. Guided by a policy of “burn and destroy to achieve your goal”, Trump is relying on the colossal US war machine to establish absolute superiority in Latin America, to rebuild a full-spectrum hegemony as in days past, and to strengthen his hand in the imperialist rivalry. Thus, US imperialism seeks to become the absolute ruling power across the entire continent by establishing its foothold on these vast territories, and to use this base as a springboard to assert dominance in the imperialist rivalry.
The Monroe Doctrine: The pursuit of absolute dominion in the “US backyard”
The US grounds its policy of absolute dominion over the entire Americas in the Monroe Doctrine. President James Monroe first articulated the doctrine bearing his name in his annual address to Congress in 1823, adopting a policy aimed at bringing the Western Hemisphere under US influence. The US, seeking to exploit the immense wealth of the continent and transform it into its backyard, intended to block further European intervention there. From that day forward, this doctrine constituted the main framework of US foreign policy on the continent. The Monroe Doctrine also aimed at the territorial expansion of the US through occupations and annexations. Later, this doctrine fused with the rhetoric of Manifest Destiny, which ideologically legitimized US expansionism across the continent.
In the 2025 US National Security Strategy, the Monroe Doctrine was formally updated under the heading “Trump Annex.” The document states: “We want a Western Hemisphere that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to ensure our continued access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will assert and enforce a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine”[2] The Trump administration’s rhetoric regarding “narcoterrorists” and “drug cartels” amounts to nothing more than fabricating a pretext for rabid imperialist aggression. There can be no “narcoterrorists” or “drug cartels” in the World –particularly in Latin America– independent of the US. Trump seeks to establish absolute control over the oil of Venezuela –which possesses the largest reserves in the world’s largest oil reserves (300 billion barrels)– as well as the rare earth elements and minerals of the continent, and to expel China and Russia by breaking their influence in the region. China, which has invested tens of billions of dollars in Venezuela, is also a major actor in the Latin American market.
The Fate of the Bolivarian Revolution!
Now let us ask this question: If the Maduro administration had truly rested on the support of the broad popular masses, if the working people had been involved in an active revolutionary struggle, could US imperialism still have carried out such an assault? Such a possibility always exists, but ultimately, let us not forget that the ruling classes must calculate the balance of forces before going on the offensive. The Maduro administration, regardless of who defends it and in the name of what cause, is in reality rotten, mired in corruption, and has largely lost the support of the toiling people. Undoubtedly, the Bolivarian bourgeois factions in power will pay a heavy price following Maduro’s abduction, but every class must make its own reckoning. The real price is being paid by Venezuela’s workers, women, youth, the poor, and, in short, the working class. The working class is paying this price because, despite rising up and creating a revolutionary situation, it failed to seize power. When the majority of the socialist and communist movement sowed illusions among the working class regarding Chávez, the “Bolivarian revolution” and “21st-century socialism”, revolutionary Marxists –including ourselves– warned of the danger and the devastating costs that would result from squandering the revolutionary situation.
Let us recall: when the US and the domestic monopoly bourgeoisie sought to oust Hugo Chávez via a military coup in 2002, the toiling masses stormed the political stage in an uprising, creating a revolutionary situation in the country. Under the impact of this revolutionary situation, Chávez shifted much further to the left, and essentially from 2005 onwards, began to call himself a socialist. Chávez proclaimed that he would build “21st-century democratic socialism” in Venezuela. According to him, this revolution would be “democratic, peaceful, humane, and bloodless, just like the revolution of Jesus”, and would bear the stamp of being Bolivarian, Venezuelan, and Latin American! However, what was presented as a revolution was nothing more than the top-down reforms of a left-nationalist bourgeois leader, the utilization of oil revenues –previously looted by imperialists and the monopoly bourgeoisie– partially for the benefit of the people, and the alleviation of deep poverty. The program of this revolution consisted of national-developmentalism, Latin American nationalism, and anti-Americanism. Indeed, the identification of this revolution with Bolívar was no coincidence. Simón Bolívar, who led the national struggle against Spanish colonialism, aspired to establish a great nation comprising Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia (named after him), Peru, and Ecuador, but failed. In a region where capitalism was not sufficiently developed and the bourgeoisie could not yet put its stamp on economic processes, Bolívar was a leader who came to be known as the Libertador (Liberator), attempting to realize the bourgeois revolution from above.
Chávez played the role of a Bonaparte, an arbiter rising above class conflicts. In the reality of Latin America, Bonapartism finds its counterpart in the tradition of the Libertador and Caudillo (savior); figures who place themselves at the very top by exploiting societal contradictions and take steps to alleviate poverty while appearing to side with the toilers. Indeed, in the eyes of the masses, Chávez –like Bolívar– took on the image of a caudillo, a libertador. In the early 2000s, Chávez brought Bolívar back to the stage, dressed in left/socialist, revolutionary, nationalist, and anti-American garb. In a sense, acting in the role of a modern Bolívar, Chávez dreamed of uniting Latin America and completing Bolívar’s unfinished work by leveraging the intensifying imperialist hegemony struggle and the support of the masses.
Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution possessed no program to overthrow capitalism through a workers’ revolution, to put an end to bourgeois private property, to eliminate exploitation, or to play a vanguard role in spreading the proletarian revolution across the entire continent. The contradiction between Chávez and US imperialism, and between Chávez and the collaborator monopoly bourgeoisie in Venezuela, did not stem from the targeting of capitalism. While all the country’s resources were being looted by a handful of monopoly bourgeoisie, the majority of society had been pushed into unbearable poverty, condemned to live in shanties, deprived of educational opportunities, and largely blocked from entering the state bureaucracy, with the exception of the army. Chávez’s left-nationalist, national-developmentalist rhetoric influenced the masses, and the politicization of the masses pushed him further to the left. Yet ultimately, Chávez reshaped the army and the state bureaucracy, and pioneered the formation of the Bolivarian bourgeoisie (the Bolibourgeoisie). State resources were transferred primarily to these sectors, and public spending increased, particularly in the period prior to the 2008 crisis when oil prices were high. Through social assistance programs and increased public spending, the living conditions of the impoverished masses improved somewhat, education rates rose, and indeed, certain segments of the working classes who gained access to education became part of the Bolivarian state bureaucracy.
Indeed, since mass support was high during this period, the plans of the US and the collaborator monopoly bourgeoisie to overthrow Chávez were thwarted. However, over time, the masses saw that the socialism Chávez spoke of did not materialize and that no deep and lasting transformation had taken place in their lives; as the revolutionary situation receded, factories seized by workers were taken back, and bureaucratization and corruption increased. Consequently, during this period, Chávez’s vote share in both referendums and elections fell sharply compared with earlier years. Chávez granted privileges to the army, and as mass support waned, the critical role of the military and police became increasingly significant for the Bolivarian regime.
However, no matter how we look at it, there is a vast difference between the Chávez and Maduro eras. Although mass support had begun to decline and revolutionary fervor had faded, the significant support still received from society and Chávez’s charismatic leadership kept the Bolivarian regime strong against the US and domestic monopoly bourgeois forces. But after Chávez’s death in 2013, Maduro assumed power, and the problems of the Bolivarian regime escalated further. The slowdown in the global economy, plummeting oil prices, heavy economic sanctions imposed by the US, and provocations by the monopoly bourgeoisie within the country squeezed the Maduro administration to the extreme. For instance, in 2017, when Maduro faced the threat of a coup, economic problems aggravated, unemployment skyrocketed, inflation rose to 800 percent, and “scarcity” and hunger set in. During this period, millions of Venezuelans were forced to migrate to countries such as Chile, Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico.
Ultimately, as the Maduro administration was squeezed both internally and externally and as mass support dwindled, it became increasingly authoritarian to hold its ground against the attacks of the opposing front, wielding the stick of the state far more often and far more openly. The socialist movement, which had once supported the Bolivarian regime in the name of socialism, largely withdrew its support. In the most recent elections, Maduro resorted to open fraud, a situation that strengthened the hand of the bourgeois opposition led by María Corina Machado. So much so that the leftist administrations in Colombia, Brazil, and Chile could not defend Maduro and were forced to call for new elections.
The fact that Trump, upon taking office for a second term, openly targeted Venezuela and that the country has been under siege since September, combined with growing economic and social problems, inevitably widened the cracks within the Bolivarian regime. It is clear that had different approaches not emerged within the Bolibourgeoisie, and particularly had cracks and fractures not formed at certain levels within the military and high-ranking civil bureaucracy –which had become the backbone of the regime– the US could not have abducted Maduro so easily. No matter how comprehensive a military operation might be, without internal ruptures and acts of treason, it is impossible to raid a country’s central military base (Fuerte Tiuna) and abduct the head of state.
Indeed, the Bolivarian movement confirms the cracks and fractures within the regime. The US abduction of Maduro is nothing short of a coup d’état orchestrated from the outside. The aim is to effect regime change, or at the very least, to rapidly pave the way for it. The fact that everything in the country continued almost as normal following the abduction of the head of state, and that no chaos ensued, naturally gives rise to the suspicion that there may be a certain agreement with the US. However, it is unclear to what extent and how far Delcy Rodriguez, who assumed the presidency after Maduro, will strike a deal with the US, or whether a puppet administration will take shape in Venezuela as Trump desires. As Trump stated before the cameras, the opposition led by the collaborator monopoly bourgeoisie, and Machado –whom the imperialists rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize– lack social support. Therefore, Trump is attempting to cultivate collaborators from within the existing regime using a carrot-and-stick policy.
Following the abduction of Maduro, the influence of China and Russia in Venezuela has suffered a significant blow. Moreover, Maduro was abducted mere hours after meeting with a Chinese delegation. The attack on Venezuela and the abduction of Maduro constitute a blatant act of intimidation directed openly at China and Russia. China, which purchases 80 percent of Venezuela’s oil, holds significant investments in the country. The oil extraction and industrial infrastructure rely primarily on Chinese technology.
What should be the revolutionary perspective of the working class?
The US’s banditry and boundless aggression will inevitably fuel a rise and a sharp intensification of class struggle in Latin America in the coming period. For, as we have observed in Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, right-wing governments that come under US control immediately transfer state resources entirely to the monopoly bourgeoisie; they implement austerity programs, eliminate public spending, energy subsidies, and social aid, slash pensions, accelerate mass layoffs, and increase the tax burden on working people. In the event of a regime change, the situation in Venezuela will be no different. When the working masses mobilize against the deep poverty into which they have been thrust, they will confront not only the domestic monopoly bourgeois factions but also US imperialism. Therefore, in the coming period, the working class struggle in Latin America will inevitably take on an anti-American character. At this juncture, it will be of vital importance to distinguish the struggle of the working class from the nationalist Bolivarian bourgeois factions, to steer it towards an independent class line, and to to give it a genuinely anti-capitalist –and therefore anti-imperialist– content. Only then can the working class transcend the anti-American framework and target capitalism itself.
It is not enough simply to oppose the bandit-like aggression of US imperialism; at the same time, it is necessary to advance a revolutionary line that targets capitalism, to the working class of Latin America–above all in Venezuela– and of the world. Supporting the Bolivarian bourgeoisie and the rotten Maduro administration, under the cover of an anti-imperialist rhetoric that does not transcend the framework of anti-Americanism, is incompatible with the principles of revolutionary Marxism and the interests of the working class. Undoubtedly, the Venezuelan working class must struggle at the forefront against US aggression and the collaborator monopoly bourgeoisie. However, while waging this fight, it must realize that it is not in the same camp as the Bolibourgeoisie, which stole the revolution from it and dragged the country into its current ruin; it must not confuse the flags. At this juncture, the example of the French working class in 1871 –which, while rising up against the German (Prussian) occupation, simultaneously targeted the rule of its own bourgeoisie, seized power, and established the Paris Commune– serves as a historical guide for both the Venezuelan and Iranian working classes. The working class must target capitalism without tailing after this or that bourgeois administration. A revolutionary stance against imperialist aggression is not the defense of a nationalist regime, but rather independent class politics and the perspective of socialist revolution.
[1] Akın Erensoy, Trump ABD Emperyalizminin Derdine Çare Olacak mı? https://gelecekbizim.net/trump-abd-emperyalizminin-derdine-care-olacak-mi-1/