Last night, Trump announced what he described as “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY!” by which the US takes majority control over 65 billion barrels of oil in Venezuela. That was followed by a shameful grovelling message by Venezuelan president Delcy Rodriguez in which she tried to frame this “historic agreement” as one which was positive for Venezuela, arguing that it “will facilitate a significant flow of investment aimed at the recovery and reconstruction of strategic infrastructure for the development of our hydrocarbons industry”.
This is yet another major qualitative turning point in the handing over of Venezuela to US imperialist control after the January 3rd military invasion and kidnapping of president Maduro. Those events are not even mentioned in Delcy’s statement, which shamefully says that “this initiative is the result of the strengthening of relations between Venezuela and the United States”!! By “strengthening” she means the US domination of Venezuela through military intervention and blackmail, which she has become an agent of.
The details of the deal are not known, but according to Delcy’s statement, the 65 billion barrels will produce 100 bn in investments and 209 billion in tax for Venezuela. That would mean 1.5 USD per barrel in investment and 3.2 USD per barrel in tax. The biggest oil heist in history!
From a more general point of view, in the short term Trump views this oil grab in terms of its struggle against Iran and in terms of gas prices in the US ahead of the mid-term elections. In the medium term, from a strategic point of view, it is in the interest of US imperialism to have direct control over Venezuela’s oil reserves. In recent days, the idea of Venezuela leaving OPEC (which would follow the UAE’s move) has also been hinted.
Venezuela and the Delcy government are now fully part of the general strategy of US imperialism, not just regionally, but globally. This is how we should see decisions regarding oil, but also the restablishment of diplomatic relations with Israel and Venezuela abandoning the ICC.
Delcy’s public statement, which was published in English and in Spanish, was then backed up by a curious statement by the PSUV national leadership expressing “full support for comrade Delcy” (though they used the old ADeco word “compañero” instead of the Bolivarian chavista “camarada”), they said they “back the leadership of the President” and, just in case it was not clear, it declared that “the PSUV remains firmly united behind our High Political Command”.
The PSUV statement can only mean one thing: there are deep and serious divisions even within the party and its organisations about the policies of submission to US imperialism and president Trump carried out by Delcy Rodríguez, divisions which have deepened after the recent announcement of reestablishing diplomatic relations with the genocidal state of Israel.
A growing number of organisations and intellectuals linked to the PSUV, which had backed Delcy’s leadership up until now, have started to break ranks and come out in opposition in various degrees.
The different arguments and justifications which have been used up until now as a fig-leaf for the complete betrayal of what little was left of the Bolivarian revolution, in substance and in form, are no longer able to hold the tide of discontent.
Mario Silva, Luis Britto García, the Coordinadora Simon Bolivar in the 23 de Enero … have all come out in one way or another in opposition to the vendepatria actions of the Delcy – Cabello government.
The problem is that after many years of justifying every single step back by the PSUV leadership in the name of pragmatism, these organisations are mostly empty, devoid of any real internal life, having become mostly channels for government subsidies in exchange for voter loyalty.
In Venezuela, many on the revolutionary left are shocked but not really surprised. They have seen the progressive hollowing out of the Venezuelan revolution, the silent destruction of the achievements of Chavez’ governments, accompanied by the emptying out of mass popular organisations, the repression against left critics …
This was a long protracted process of thermidorian counter-revolution which started all the way back in 2013, with the death of Chavez and the election of Maduro.
But outside Venezuela, where many did not follow the process as it unfolded, the surprise and bewilderment is greater. It has taken months and events for many to draw the necessary conclusion: the Venezuelan revolution is no more, Delcy’s government is an agent of the country’s submission to US imperialism.
To those who now have reached this inevitable conclusion we recommend that they should go back and read what we wrote and warned about at the time, in 2013, when Maduro desrtoyed worker’s control in Guayana, in 2015, when the PSUV lost the National Assembly elections, in 2018, when Maduro implemented a monetarist anti-working class package, in 2020, when the assault against left wing political parties (UPV, Tupamaros, PPT, PCV) started …
A summary of the whole process can be found in the May 2026 issue of In Defence of Marxism (issue #53 https://magazine.marxist.com/#individual-issues)
More generally, it is necessary to learn the lessons of the achievements and also the limitations of the Bolivarian revolution under Chavez. I would recommend all those interested to read the new edition of Alan Woods book about it (https://wellred-books.com/the-venezuelan-revolution/)
We have the right to say “we told you so”. But this is not about point scoring. There is a more important question at stake. Or rather, two.
The first one is that we need to draw the necessary lessons from this betrayal (for that is what it is). If we do not strive to understand the why and the how, then inevitably we will fall into pessimism. This is also necessary in order to arm ourselves, so as not to make the same mistakes again.
The second one is this. For many years, the movement in solidarity with the Venezuelan revolution was divided, deliberately, between those of us who thought that solidarity had to be unconditional, but not uncritical, and those who argued that we, in the West, could not and should not comment nor contribute to the debates about the strategy of the Bolivarian revolution. The leadership in Caracas knew best and we should abide by their wisdom.
In reality, the division was also between those of us who see solidarity as a revolutionary duty, who see the defence of revolution abroad as part of our own struggle for revolution at home; and those who international solidarity see it as a nice gesture, a moral imperative, in many occasions as a fig-leaf for their own rotten policies at home.
In one occasion, I think it was at the NUJ conference in some seaside town, we had a Hands Off Venezuela fringe meeting. Also at the conference was the director of Cuba Solidarity Campaign. We got talking and told him that it would be a good idea to link the two campaigns closer, as clearly the two issues were intimately related. He argued against: “your campaign is political, ours is not”. I was surprised. “What do you mean ‘political’, surely there is nothing more political than solidarity with the Cuban revolution!” I put it to him.
And he explained: “no, no, CSC is not a political campaign. We have people in the campaign who support Cuba for many different reasons, some like Caribbean holidays, Cuban cigars, Cuban rum, in our parliamentary group there are even Tory MPs! and we would not want to alienate them”.
Incidentally, this goes a long way in explaining the lack of any real mobilisation on the part of CSC in the last few months when Cuba has been faced with the most dangerous assault by US imperialism in decades.
The same was true in the Venezuela solidarity movement. The same types (Stalinists, trade union bureaucrats, etc) set up a campaign to rival HOV using all sorts of underhand methods (including bribery!). Their aim was to replace a revolutionary solidarity campaign with a club of fans of the Bolivarian leadership.
They are now at sixes and sevens. They continue to argue for uncritical support for Delcy and her government even when it is abundantly clear what the character of that government is.
There is a lesson here, one which by the way, also applies to Cuba solidarity and the right of communists, in Cuba and abroad, to participate in the debate about the course chosen (under duress) by the Cuban leadership.
