By Geraldina Colotti, Resumen Latinoamericano on August 29, 2024
George Bush meeting with Maria Corina Machado in the White House. photo: Charles Dharapak/ AP
What drives the main European newspapers, even the “progressive” ones, to strongly support a character like María Corina Machado who, if the old equation between progressivism and leftism is valid, is not progressive at all? Why do these newspapers devote entire pages to present her as a champion of rights a person who in her “government program” -presented through an intermediary puppet candidate, alias Edmundo Gustavo Urrutia- declares herself a supporter of the same model proposed by Milei, the “chainsaw madman” in Argentina (savage privatizations and cuts in public services), of Trump and of the genocidal Netanyahu in foreign policy? How is it possible for a white supremacist oligarch, who is disgusted by “black” (and poor) women – to be presented as a feminist and defender of equal marriage?
Anyone with a minimum of intellectual honesty must recognize that only with Bolivarian socialism did women from the popular and traditionally excluded sectors (to the point of not even having an identity card because they remained for generations at the service of oligarchic families like the Machados) have so much success, freedom and power to decide about their own lives and in politics.
Anyone with a minimum of intellectual honesty will remember the sad political fate reserved for the only trans candidate elected from the ranks of the right in a previous electoral cycle. He will also remember the demonstrations organized by the extreme right wing to which Machado belongs to pilot the reactionary sectors of the evangelical churches, emanations of those powerful multinationals that feed the right wing in Brazil, Argentina, Africa and Latin America, and that clash with the progressive inter-religious associations, allied to Bolivarian socialism.
Reactionary sectors that went so far as to besiege the Venezuelan Parliament precisely to prevent the discussion of the “egalitarian marriage” proposal and clashed with the “sex-diversity” organizations that support Bolivarian socialism.
The point is that, as never before, in the context of a redefinition of geopolitical power relations at the global level, it is also necessary to reestablish the ideological paradigms of a new hegemony, which cohesionizes the discourse of the dominant classes. It is essential, therefore, to establish the definitive separation between the defense of economic rights, which are the basis of the dignity of the individual, and the so-called social rights.
It is necessary, that is to say, to conceal the class asymmetry inherent in the abstract defense of social rights: because a rich white lesbian will certainly have a better chance of escaping racism than a poor, black or indigenous lesbian. And because the struggle against patriarchy – being a “systemic” issue that runs through the production and reproduction of life – is a fundamental axis of the struggle against capitalism and imperialism, since it is a matter of conquering freedom for all. And this is why it is necessary to choose sides: because if you are neither on one side of the barricade nor the other, you end up being the barricade yourself.
But here comes into play another “dogma” of bourgeois democracy, that of “independence”: of information, of institutions, etc., etc., etc. As if opinions did not derive from a concrete vision of the world, determined by class interests. Thus, for example, the (belated) declarations of one of the rectors of the National Electoral Council, openly opposed to the opposition, who sowed doubts about the electoral results, seem more “independent” than those who, on the other hand, invite to respect Venezuelan democracy, presenting evidence and not suppositions.
And so, the hundreds and hundreds of NGOs, think tanks and right-wing parties become credible and, who knows why, “independent”, and their statements are taken at face value. Given the large media concentration, corresponding to the economic one, the level of “independence” of the European media can be seen, first of all, by the name of those who finance it and who are the owners of the “social networks”.
And you can see it in the millions of euros that go to support the so-called “freedom of the press” in Venezuela. The Swedish government has decided to give one last “urgent” contribution of 10,000 kronor: “to help journalists document the restrictions on freedoms and human rights following the controversial elections in Venezuela,” said the Minister for International Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, Johan Forssell.
Two years ago, an investigation by the South African newspaper Daily Maverich denounced the financing of one million pounds sterling, provided to Venezuelan organizations and media (among them the National Union of Press Workers, Efecto Cocuyo and Radio Fe y Alegría) by the British government through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
To the Venezuelan government’s note of protest, the British responded, arrogantly, that “freedom of expression and free media are necessary for democracy and protecting them in all parts of the world is a priority”. The degree of protection of press freedom by British imperialism can be seen in the number of journalists killed in Gaza by weapons supplied to Netanyahu.
And it should at least make us suspicious that even the conveyors of the light left, averse to anything that smacks of “communism” as a synonym for “dictatorship”, are now eager to take up the arguments of that part of the Communist Party of Venezuela that accuses Maduro of being moderate and “anti-democratic”, but voted … for the extreme right.
The point is that, in the context of the “third fragmented world war”, according to Pope Bergoglio’s apt definition, the strategy of “controlled chaos” desired by imperialism and NATO must correspond to that of cognitive warfare against brains and consciences, so that they lose the link between signifier and signified.
How can one award the Sakarov Prize to a reinvented Nazi like the Venezuelan Lorent Saleh, and call Bolivarian socialism a “dictatorship”? But it has already been done, and the photo released by former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, who should have a memory of the fascists, while embracing Saleh, was the proof of the short-circuit.
How can one propose to the Nobel Peace Prize to a coup leader like Machado who, in European countries, would have been in prison for years? But it has already been done, and it was done with other war criminals. And now, in Prague, the woman is one of the three finalists for the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize, awarded every year by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). The prize at stake is $60,000. They will thus serve to cover the expenses of the numerous “influencers” who act abroad on behalf of the far right and who are purposed with the task of numbing the brains of young people.
A video from the Instagram account @nitantukky shows a leaked conversation of Greg Allessandro Sewo Hernández, better known as @GregAventuras, in which he reveals how the payment works. Sewo Hernandez explains that influencers contacted by Venezuelan fascism receive a total of $400 for a package that includes the creation of two reels on Instagram, two videos for TikTok and eight stories for two weeks.
The content creator, who is based in Argentina, states that he receives the payment in advance through Binance. However, in the posts he refuses to go too far in his calls for street violence for fear of legal consequences.
Today more than ever, Bolivarian socialism is a laboratory that indicates barriers and perspectives for a possible alternative model for this third millennium.
On the plate (a rich plate), first and foremost is the possession of resources. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, valued at more than 30% this year; the first in gold; it is in fourth place in gas reserves; it is one of the first reserves of iron, aluminum, coltan; it possesses 21% of the water reserves of South America… Resources that, as Machado and her “government” of cronies plan openly stating everything must be privatized again: starting with the national oil company, PDVSA.
At stake is Venezuela’s solid position in the redefinition of a multicentric and a multipolar world that has at its center the Brics alliance, an alternative to the G7, which the country has asked to join. The 16th summit of the alliance, of which Russia holds this year’s pro tempore presidency, will take place in the city of Kazan from October 22-24.
However, preparatory meetings have already begun. The Deputy Minister for Anti-Blockade Policies, William Castillo, participated in the VI International Municipal Forum in which it was discussed how to recover the economy of countries which, like Venezuela and Russia, are among the five most persecuted sanctioned nations in the world; and for this reason they are developing common strategies.
And the Vice Minister for Europe, Coromoto Godoy, met with the Russian Chargé d’Affaires in Venezuela, Eduard Sokolov, to establish the modalities of participation in the Kazan summit, in which Venezuela will participate as an observer. September will be a crucial month. Among the more than 200 events programmed in Russian territory, the International Congress on Technology will be held in Moscow from September 17 to 19, which will focus on the search for “technological sovereignty and the role of the BRICS”. As announced by the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Yvan Gil, in September there will be a meeting of foreign ministers in New York to define how Venezuela can join the alliance.
And Lula’s role, which is played between the Brics and Mercosur, within which the Brazilian president has long been willing to sign a free trade agreement with the European Union, would be at the origin of the dubious attitude adopted with respect to the Venezuelan presidential elections.
A stance openly criticized at the extraordinary meeting of the Alba countries, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of America, created by Cuba and Venezuela, which expressed firm support for the sovereignty of the Bolivarian country and a clear rejection of external interference. According to the President of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, who surely has experience in the imperial sieges of his country, Lula and his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, “are competing for leadership in the region, on behalf of the US administration”, which lurks and threatens with the power of its military bases and its mercenaries.
On the other hand, Daniel reiterated that the government and people of Nicaragua will oppose any act of hostility against the Bolivarian nation, with which Nicaragua maintains solid relations of friendship and collaboration. “We need to prepare ourselves, Nicolas, to fight and defeat them. And rest assured that in this battle you can count on the Sandinista fighters”, he said.
Another big issue at stake is the peace of the Latin American continent, the only one not yet infested by imperialist war. The objective of an extreme right wing that has its strongholds in the region -said President Maduro- is to destroy the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac), declared a “peace zone”. But, whoever dares to attack Venezuela will have to deal – he said – “with our friends, who will protect us, because many people are willing to do anything to achieve peace in Venezuela, which is the peace of South America”.
Meanwhile, the attack on the Bolivarian process continues, articulated also by large “humanitarian” multinationals such as Amnesty International, which has come out in the field launching a collection of signatures against the right of the country to decide on the basis of its own laws, and falsifying the number of deaths, as always attributing them to the wrong side.
It is an all-out fight.
Never before has the frenzied attack against Bolivarian Venezuela, its institutions, its social project and its president, Maduro, reelected on July 28, had a courage and a scope that transcends the borders of the Latin American country, and those of the continent to which it belongs.