“…They ask if our own nation was not using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government...” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

In the early hours of Saturday morning January 3, 2026, just three days into the New Year, the United States carried out a Special Forces operation on Venezuelan soil, which kidnapped the sitting President Nicholas Maduro Moro and his wife Cilia Flores. I will not use space to further repeat what is already known that the invasion was unilateral, immoral and in violation of International Law and the United Nations Charter, Article 2. While the above is empirically true, I want to focus on the ideological and political engines that drive this “drum major instinct” (MLK). This instinct has been a part of the great power chauvinism that successive US Administrations have been obsessed with, and have spared no opportunity, real or imagined to express it militarily. The atrocity in Venezuela on January 3, is the culmination of a historical “grudge” that the United States have had for a country that has sought to assert its right to self-determination.

The End of Corruption and the Rise of Democracy

Prior to 1998 with the election of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela was plagued with political corruption by politicians, deep and open racial and class divisions, social favoritism, and inequality encouraged by the oil companies operating in the country, and distrust for the numerous political parties and their candidates. According to Miguel Tinker Salas in his book “Venezuela: What Everyone Needs To Know,” in a 1997 poll “53.4 percent of the population did not favor any of the potential candidates.” On December 6, 1998, Hugo Chavez received 56 percent of the vote: “The election of Chavez, a former coup leader, sent shock waves throughout the region and raised concerns in Washington” – Miguel Tinker Salas.

The election of Hugo Chavez was not only a new point in Venezuelan politics, but one that markedly differed from previous decades. Most notably was the shift of power from the local oligarchs, the influence of the oil companies in domestic affairs, the inclusion of previously marginalized groups and most importantly, grass roots participation in the democratic process which was beginning to unfold. This democratic process was underscored by the adoption of a new and progressive Constitution in 2000, which not only addressed domestic inequalities but also Foreign Affairs issues and the role of Venezuela on the world stage. The Chavez Administration advocated for an integration and collaborative approach between Latin America and the Caribbean: ” creating a community of nations that would defend the economic, social, cultural, political, and environmental interests of the region.” The focal point of the Foreign Affairs Policy of the new Constitution is that Venezuela endeavored to assert its right to independence and self-determination. It refused to be a signatory to any international agreement that recognizes any “supra-national” judicial body to resolve disputes.

The ire of the oil companies operating in Venezuela, and the Administration in Washington was raised when Venezuela became the leader of the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC). Chavez visited all OPEC member countries at the time, and apart from an increase in oil prices, Chavez advocated for OPEC to adopt some type of social responsibility policies. One area of concern was the enormous debt developing countries were “strangled” with. The local media, the Venezuelan oligarchs and opposition parties began a campaign of misinformation and demonization against the Chavez government; this came to a head when in 2001 the government approved the Hydrocarbons Law, which placed oil definitively under State control. The oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips ceased operations in Venezuela, herein began the relentless attacks against Venezuela.

Swearing-in of Vice-President Delcy Rodriquez as interim President of Venezuela - Photo: venezuelaAnalysis.com

The Ideology of Fascism: Militarism and Annexation

I had previously written on this site that one of the characteristics of fascism is narrow nationalism, expressed in its mildest form by extreme hatred of other countries; however, in Foreign Policy, jingoism and annexation are the modus operandi of fascist regimes. The United States has always embraced the concept of exceptionalism, which was emboldened by the Trump Administration’s ascension to power, and the open demonization of other countries and cultures. Everyone should recall Donald Trump’s tirade against countries of color, and the ban of countries with majority Muslim population during his first time in office. The same sentiments continued into now his second time in office. The announcement of making Canada the 51st State of the United States, the threat of taking over Greenland even by force, threats to Mexico, Cuba, and Columbia, are expressions of not simply idiocy, but the deep-rooted ideology of the annexationist intent of a fascist Administration.

The Monroe Doctrine, the Trump Corollary, the Project for the New American Century are the US’s version of  Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf: The aim of bringing in and controlling all those territories that the fascist regime perceives as “weak”, or can serve as a “launching pad” to attack other nations, or can provide it with unrestricted access to resources that it needs to feed its consumerism appetite. The “big money” capitalists need fascism to solve their problem of production and markets; goods and services are produced but the buying power of the intended targets - the consumers – is restricted because of soaring prices. The global market has also shrunk, competition in prices, Terms of trade, regional associations and currency alternatives have plunged capitalism deeper in crisis. The resuscitation of capitalism’s body-politic demands that it resorts to desperate, open, and coercive measures to save itself. Venezuela’s oil reserves and other natural resources are beyond reach with ordinary means. Venezuela is pursuing a socioeconomic path of self-determination, national sovereignty and participatory democracy through its Communes, and various people power elections. The Bolivarian process that fuels these Policies must not be allowed to continue.

State Power and The Role of The Military in Politics

One sociologist referred to the army as a “special group of armed men,” and indeed that is what they are. The army, as a collective, does not act on the basis of ideological leaning, but more so on the basis of military objectives issued to them by the high command. The army is an integral part of state power, which is the ability to coerce, if necessary, in maintaining and defending the socioeconomic system, whichever type it is. National Security is indeed a function of the military, and high on their operational agenda. However, if and when internal or external factors threaten to seriously disrupt or eliminate a socioeconomic system, the military will be used to crush or eliminate those threats.

Although not ideologically driven, the military is not isolated or “insulated” from the social issues occurring in the wider society; military personnel have families and friends with whom they live with or interact, respectively. Problems of unemployment, Health Care, inflation, governmental corruption, and the like impacts their family and friends and are undoubtedly discussed quite feverishly. It is naïve to think that these problems and discussions would go unnoticed by any individual army officer and would not have a psychological impact on said officer. History is replete with examples of the army acting outside of their basic “code” of operation; armies have acted either in a revolutionary or reactionary manner.

Revolutionary military action was taken by sections of the military in Libya, Sudan, Egypt, and Iraq in the 50’s and 60’s; more recently military action in the Sahel States, Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have produced progressive military governments. What just took place in Venezuela was not a coup, it was a downright invasion of sovereignty resulting in the kidnapping of the legitimate, democratically elected President of the country. However, the words of Jack Woodis in his book Armies and Politics, have instructive import for the situation that occurred in Venezuela: “A coup cannot be avoided or, if begun, defeated solely by vigilance, material preparations, and physical countermeasures, although such precautions should never be forgotten. Of decisive importance is political preparation, the conducting of political work in such a fashion that conditions are not allowed to develop to a stage in which it becomes possible, and in some cases relatively easy to initiate a coup.”

The murderous sanctions imposed on Venezuela, and the placing of a $50M bounty on President Maduro, and the infiltration and covert action by the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), must also fit into this context. In any case, gaining electoral victory is not automatic that the control and maintaining of State power is guaranteed. The organs of the State such as the military, police, courts, and other “enforcement” agencies, are theoretically responsible, and are expected to defend and cement the governance of the socioeconomic system with which they are entrusted. By the same token, governmental leadership cannot afford to lose or limit its intimate contact or interaction with the masses. The position occupied by the military puts them in a unique position to challenge the government, if they feel government is a hinderance to the development of theirs, and that of the wider society. Perceived loyalty is not enough, disconnection from the working class is a recipe for disaster.

The Trump Administration and the Corporate Media, spare no opportunity in telling the public how precision-like the operation was. Although it was well executed, too much credit and a lopsided analysis is being given to the US military for what took place in Venezuela. The operation could not succeed without there being a “fracture” within and without the military establishment of Venezuela. United States imperialism is relentless and desperate in regaining lost ground globally.

Venezuelans protesting the kidnapping of President Nicholas Maduro - Photo: Rome Arrieche

What is The Way Forward?

Fascism with all its financial, organizational, and military resources is defeatable. Everywhere that fascism has operated and has been defeated both at home and abroad, comes from a united Mass Movement; a Movement comprised of anti-fascist, anti-imperialist forces. The Mass Movement must make it difficult and downright impossible for the forces of fascism to operate in the old way. Social activism reminiscent of the Vietnam war era, including new tactics must be the order of the day. Only mass activism within the respective countries can force the international community through its recognized Agency the United Nations (UN), to act in curtailing and stopping the global threat of fascism looming and expanding before our eyes.

The democratic people of Venezuela must resist unhesitatingly this imperial aggression on their sovereignty, and the threat to their pursuit of self-determination.  There must be mass civil disobedience; the people's militia must be fully mobilized, deployed and execute joint security operations with the country's military and law enforcement; general strikes, sanctions and travel restrictions must be imposed on persons and countries that support this invasion of their territory. The world faces an existential threat from an Administration which has no respect for domestic or international Law, has no regards for trampling on the sovereign Rights of other countries, and is being led by a megalomaniac, and unhinged President. Only a united front, and organized resistance within and outside the United States, can stem the tide of this global peril.