An Open Letter to Members of the Socialist Party / Australian Socialists

Comrades in The Socialist Party,

When the US, on 3 January, kidnapped Nicolas Maduro, the President of the Republic of Venezuela, a nation that is ferociously independent of imperialism, how did the Socialist Party / Australia Socialists respond? On 5 January, it issued a nationally co-ordinated statement that bitterly attacked the Venezuelan Government and Nicolas Maduro, who is currently incarcerated in New York.

The Socialist Party and its state-based groups (NSW Socialists, Vic Socialists) have been silent on Venezuela since it started forming as Victorian Socialists in 2018. None of the materials of the Socialist Party or its state-based organisations, their websites or social media, have made mention of the Bolivarian Revolution. For seven years there was not a word about the sustained, popular mobilisation and organisation of the poor and working class to transform Venezuelan society and to defeat the violent opposition led by the Venezuelan capitalist oligarchy. The newspaper of the largest affiliate organisation – Red Flag – did not publish on Venezuela at all during 2025 – the period of Trump’s massive escalation of aggression.

On 5 January 2026, two days after the first direct US military attack in Latin America in 36 years, at the very time when the Trump regime is threatening massive escalation against Cuba and other countries in the region, the Socialist Party finally mentions Venezuela. And in doing so, the SP statement attacks the Venezuelan leadership.

It is difficult to think of a more irresponsible and damaging stance for your party to take – if in fact this statement was issued by a party majority.

What possible political advantage for Venezuelans, for all the countries of Latin America, and for the global fight against imperialism could be gained by publishing unsubstantiated, hostile attacks against Maduro and the Venezuelan government right now? Venezuela is still militarily encircled and subject to a total naval blockade.

The 5 January statement issued in the name of the SP is so unprofessional and deeply chauvinistic in its content that it poses the questions. Who wrote it? Does this statement represent the views of the SP membership as a whole? Were the members even consulted? An individual member of NSW Socialists executive who spoke at the rally in Sydney argued a completely different line, a much better one, in defence of the Venezuelan revolution.

Accusations Without Evidence

Without any attempt to prove or even explain its accusations, the SP statement asserts that,

“Maduro – in a desperate effort to stay in power despite rising discontent – pivoted to serving elite interests (both within Venezuela and among international capitalists), imposed increasingly authoritarian rule, and implemented a crackdown on working-class organisation and dissent.”

This is just trash talk. Does the SP leadership analyse events in Venezuela? Who would seriously argue that the majority of the poor – whether they are working-class or semi-proletariat – are not on the side of the revolution? If the poor majority do not support the continuation of the Bolivarian Revolution, what explains the huge mass mobilisations in support of it over the last two days (and the last 25 years)? What explains the government’s continuous electoral victories? What explains its ability to remain in power?

If the Venezuelan government does not have a massive social base how would it be possible to expand the size of the civilian militia, since August 2025, to between 4 million and 8 million people? Does the Socialist Party statement envisage that the millions of armed Venezuelan civilians all live in Altamira or other bourgeois areas of Caracas?

Of course, in class terms, what is really happening with the expansion of the militia, is the arming of the poor and the working-class, not “serving elite interests.”

According to the Socialist Party statement,

“Under Maduro, however, Venezuela has suffered a deep economic crisis (crippling economic sanctions imposed by Washington were a major factor), and extreme poverty has returned to stalk the country.”

This is more black propaganda. Downplaying the decades long imperialist economic siege is standard for pro-imperialist propagandists and liberal-mainstream supporters of imperialist foreign policy. In the Socialist Party’s version, it is downplayed as merely “a major factor” – i.e. one factor among others. We are not told what the other factors are. Presumably the SP’s answer is similar to the imperialists’ propaganda – the self-serving, brutal incompetence of the “authoritarian” state that is “serving the elites”.

The October 2025 statement by Hands Off Venezuela (the coalition that co-ordinated the 4-5 January national round of emergency mobilisations) points out that imperialist aggression against the Bolivarian Revolution has been ongoing for over two decades including, for example, “some 1,042 unilateral coercive measures imposed by the US and its allies.” None of this is mentioned in the Socialist Party statement.

What does the Socialist Party statement mean by “serving the elites”?

Does the SP seriously hold the view that the Bolivarian Revolution should not do any deals with foreign capital? That it should kick Chevron out of the country? That it should not attempt to normalise relations with the USA (as the Cuban Revolution has also sought to do for more than 6 decades)? That all domestic capitalists should be expropriated immediately, regardless of the balance of forces or the level of preparedness of the working class and its allies? Must the Bolivarian Revolution adopt suicidal policies (i.e. socialism in one isolated country) to win the blessing of the Socialist Party leaders?

Any honest assessment of Venezuela, among other things, would need to ask what degree of social gains are actually possible in a small, very isolated, under-developed Global South country holding state power, but holding it in the teeth of imperialism, so to speak. Unless that is a starting point no serious “analysis” is possible.

And what is meant by the unexplained, throw away, accusation of “increasingly authoritarian rule”? Does the SP leadership imagine that it is even possible for the Bolivarian revolution to hold onto power for 25 years, again, in the teeth of US imperialism, against a belligerent, implacable, in many cases fascist bourgeois opposition without fighting hard against that opposition – including, when necessary, repressing it? In what world?

The Venezuelan opposition has a long track record of killing revolutionaries and civilians alike, of coup attempts, economic sabotage and collaboration with imperialist aggression – including supporting imperialist economic siege and calling for imperialist military intervention to violently destroy majority rule. Maria Machado famously even called for the IDF to intervene. Machado’s fascist, oligarchic, white-supremacist hatred of the poor is not unique. It represents the dominant outlook of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. Her family were slave owners. They believe it is their right to rule.

The coup in 2002 attempted to install Pedro Carmona– the head of Venezuela’s main employers’ federation – as President. Had it succeeded, the new civilian-military dictatorship would have drowned the working class and poor majority in blood – just as happened in 1989. Had the 2019 coup (debacle) been successful the new Juan Guido-led regime, again, would only have been able to hold power by widespread executions, imprisonment and systematic terror against the poor majority. If Rubio and Trump are successful in 2026 – we will surely witness a mass terror to wipe out the heritage of popular power and the gains of the poor majority.

The Socialist Party statement seems to assume that it is possible for a revolution to hold power against the wishes of a powerful capitalist class, which is also backed by US imperialism, and do so without some form of repression. Of course, the Bolivarian government has to take repressive measures against the bourgeois opposition when that opposition is insurgent. The situation is similar to that of a war. Does the Socialist Party leadership also think the Russian Bolsheviks should have been condemned for their “authoritarian rule” when defeating the counter-revolutionary armies during the Russian civil war?

Moderate Social-Democratic reformism

The Socialist Party argues

“Chávez redirected a portion of the profits flowing from the country’s massive oil wealth – which had long been siphoned-off by US and other multinational corporations with the (well rewarded) complicity of the country’s elite – towards improving the lives of the working class and the poor. For this, he was loathed by right-wing capitalists and their political servants everywhere.

At the height of the Chávez-led ‘Bolivarian revolution’ from 2003-2011 Venezuela saw a 30 percent decline in poverty and a 71 percent decline in extreme poverty, as well as a steep drop in inequality.”

To present the Bolivarian Revolution as a moderate, redistributionist project ruling over essentially passive masses of people is a dishonest distortion of the history.

The Bolivarian Revolution has been characterised from the beginning by major transformations in popular organisation, popular power and popular consciousness. The social gains, which are far more significant than the Socialist Party statement admits (and many of which continue or are even being expanded under Maduro) are the result of this mass struggle and popular power. Limitations of the social gains are the result of the limitations and weaknesses of the popular power and organisation. The weaknesses too are significant – again, inevitably. We are talking about a very isolated, Global South country where development has been distorted and held back historically by imperialist domination.

The Venezuelan struggle has been a protracted and gruelling class war that, at all stages, has relied on the Venezuelan people to organise and mobilise themselves. Any historical account of this epic battle has to account for such things as the Bolivarian Circles, the new constitution, the Communal Councils, workers control of factories, nationalisations of foreign and domestic capitalists (including expropriation of US corporations), coup and counter-coup, the purging and re-organisation of the military (civilian-military union), establishment of the militias, ongoing mass mobilisations, pitched battles on the streets, countering foreign mercenary operations, media wars and the battle of ideas, Venezuela’s diplomatic offensives against the imperialist wars in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, breaking diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009, the defeat of the recall referendums, massive electoral victories, the struggle to wrest technical control of the oil industry, the Local Committees for Supply and Production (CLAP) of subsidised food, the battle for food sovereignty, building five million new houses, countering multiple assassination attempts, decades of imperialist black propaganda and political offensives, imperialist sanctions, sabotage, cyber warfare and now military encirclement and incursion. That is just a list. A very incomplete one.

For people who are interested in Venezuela, there have been many good books and articles written. Are any of these circulated among Socialist Party members? Has the SP membership even discussed any of these issues at branch meetings? Is there a broad understanding of the history of Venezuela’s revolutionary process among the SP membership? If not, why publicly condemn it?

International Context

The Bolivarian Revolution has largely been waged in isolation, against a powerful tide of international reaction. In an era in which politics has turned sharply to the right internationally, Venezuela has not capitulated. The Revolution remains in power. Popular organising at the grass roots and communal level continues – extended now to greater armed organisation with the dramatic expansion of the militia and deepened through the ongoing construction of communes.

For a revolutionary socialist government to hold power in the 21^st century is a major achievement. For one thing, it prevents blood-thirsty counter-revolution from dismantling the social gains. Venezuela has also been a major factor assisting the Cuban Revolution to survive in the same, very difficult conditions. The Venezuelan Revolution also helps to strengthen the international balance of class forces against imperialism.

The Socialist Party’s Statement Refuses to Defend Venezuela

The SP statement is so hostile to the Venezuelan leadership that the authors decided against even calling for the release of Nicolas Maduro from prison! In the battle between the United States and the Venezuelan state it refuses to take a side:

“The future of Venezuela should be in the hands of Venezuelans themselves, rather than imperial puppet-masters like Trump and Marco Rubio, or those within the Venezuelan regime that may choose to put themselves at their service.”

However, broadly speaking, there are only two possible outcomes: (1) destruction of the revolutionary power and a US backed takeover by the fascist bourgeoisie or (2) a continuation of the Bolivarian Process. Whatever the SP leaders might think of each of those possibilities, they don’t get to invent another option – not in the real world.

The Socialist Party Did Not Mobilise On 4-5 January

Besides the attacks on the Bolivarian leadership, The Socialist Party statement also includes phrases like it “condemns Trump’s imperialist aggression against Venezuela”. However, the reality is the Socialist Party leadership chose not to organise a national mobilisation for the emergency actions on 4-5 January. It was not involved in the organisation of these actions and did not even organise contingents in most major cities. Rhetorical “condemnation” of Trump or Albanese is completely meaningless if there is no will to organise for this.

Rather than condemning the Venezuelan leadership from thousands of kilometres away for what they have supposedly failed to achieve while under attack by imperialism, The Socialist Party should concentrate more on taking responsibility for weakening imperialism at home. The weaknesses of organisation and consciousness of the Australian working class are obviously dire. There is much work to do here before anyone should start lecturing the Venezuelans. The weaknesses here will only be worsened by the sort of ignorant and chauvinistic proclamations like those in the recent Socialist Party statement.

Socialists in Australia can begin to raise consciousness and internationalism among Australian working people, and among socialists, by studying the Venezuelan struggle, by taking inspiration from the gains that it does make.

We hope this letter will provoke the internationalist minded among the Socialist Party members to bring these perspectives forward in your party. We hope the majority will agree that now is not the time for hasty attacks on the Venezuelan leadership.

Solidarity in Struggle,

Red Spark National Executive

Link to the Socialist Party statement
https://victoriansocialists.org.au/news/venezuela-statement