On what is happening in Venezuela...

Regarding what is happening in Venezuela, two possibilities appear to exist here. The first is that the neocons who emerged as the new elites of the United States failed to understand that the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War stemmed from a global systemic crisis—one that would eventually strike them as well. They surrendered themselves to a state of victory intoxication.

The second possibility is that, even if they did see this, they sought to overcome it by turning it into an opportunity.

In essence, once the plans were put into motion, the differences between these possibilities ceased to matter. We see the first signs of this in the final decade of the Cold War, during the Reagan era. The Reagan period—between 1981 and 1989—was spent rehearsing this transformation. At the time, the Soviet Union was still standing. Naturally, it continued to lead the so-called Evil Bloc. Reagan disliked the balancing factions. Their ultimate preference had been to implement the principles of “Détente” and “Peaceful Coexistence.” To be fair, they did not choose this path arbitrarily. What happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War pushed them in that direction. The former brought the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe, while the Vietnam War severely exhausted the United States.

From the 1960s through the late 1970s, hopes for peace gradually rose across the world, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief. But during this period, the United States was losing power. On the surface, the Soviet economy appeared more successful. Rising figures in the Soviet Union and declining ones in the US alarmed even a seasoned economist like Samuelson, prompting panic-laden statements along the lines of “It seems we are losing.” Meanwhile, Soviet-aligned movements were coming to power in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Mozambique, and Angola. As if that were not enough, Iran experienced an unprecedented religious revolution. Détente did not appear to benefit the United States. The era of the balancers was coming to an end.

This is precisely why Reagan emerged on the scene with a two-pronged approach: on the one hand, a neoliberal, anarchic economic-political program that brought an end to the Keynesianism that had dominated the Western world during the Cold War; and on the other hand, a posture of global aggression. Figures such as Thatcher, Kohl, and Özal were his global allies in Europe.

The strange thing is this: in the late 1970s, a curious observer looking at the world could reasonably have concluded that the Soviets would prevail. Yet within a decade, it was they who collapsed with a thunderous crash. This development further emboldened the neocons. In 1989, the Reagan era came to an end. That same year, the Wall fell. Two years later, the Soviet Union was buried in history.

The new president, George H. W. Bush, quickly redirected neocon global aggression toward the Middle East. Constructing the ideological pillars of this global frenzy was not difficult at all. Freedoms—that is, the core values that supposedly define the West—were more than sufficient. After all, as some had written, history itself had come to an end. There was no need for ideological craftsmanship. Instead, as others wrote, a clash of civilizations was beginning. It was no longer necessary to distinguish friends and enemies by ideology; distinguishing between civilizations would suffice. Here, Islam replaced the old communist ideology.

During the balancing era, statist military or coup-based regimes that had served as US proxies were left exposed and subsequently eliminated. The removal of Marcos and Pinochet, as well as the hurried dismissal of those responsible for the September 12 coup in our own country, point to this. The New Left fell squarely into this trap. They mistook this operation for the US and the West coming to their senses, for moral self-correction. This made it easier to subject them to liberal re-education. The set of values they now held was highly functional. Democracy, human rights, and freedoms were the teeth of that key—and it worked like a master key spreading almost a curse.

By now, even the average person on the street knows that the real issue has always been the preservation of a dollar-based global trade network, particularly petrodollar hegemony. Beginning in the 1990s, China’s advance disrupted all these plans. At the same time, the systemic crisis was working its way ever deeper. After the 2000s, it became impossible to conceal or sustain. An irreparable fracture emerged within the structure of capital itself.

As we have pointed out many times, a segment of capital—dominated by certain financial and technological circles—stepped onto the stage with a new and highly radical transformation plan. They called it the Green New Deal Doctrine. It was a peculiar program that carried the fragilities and sensitivities of the upper middle class and equated the concept of freedom with every kind of avant-garde and marginal lifestyle associated with that class. Wokeism became its standard-bearer. Essentially, this meant declaring war on carbon-based energy sources. It signaled a radical transformation devoted to establishing new US hegemony on a different foundation.

They looked down on puppet regimes in the Middle East that survived on oil and natural gas, and more importantly, they challenged Russia, a major energy power. China, with its polluting industries, was naturally also a target. But most importantly of all, this was a war opened against America’s own energy giants—in short, regardless of its global reflections, it was an intra-capital struggle. The real question was which side the information, pharmaceutical, agricultural, and military complexes would take in this split.

At first, the Green New Deal was tried. But its cost exceeded 100 trillion dollars. It was judged to be the fantasy of grossly incompetent political elites. This is precisely what paved the way for Trump’s success. The tech, agricultural, and military complexes abandoned the Wokeists, who had alienated the masses whose economic lives were shrinking under middle-class fantasies and had earned their hatred. They returned to factory settings.

Now everything appears to be once again devoted to restoring the petrodollar and dollar monopolies in global trade. The difference is this: they no longer feel the need to cloak their aggression. Step by step, they are pressuring China’s trade routes and seizing the energy resources it depends on. For now, it seems there is a pause for regional “clean-ups.” For Russia, this means Eastern Europe and the Baltics; for the United States, Latin America and the Middle East; for China, the Pacific. Once everyone finishes cleaning their zone, they will continue from where they left off. Ukraine and Venezuela are the first to be crushed beneath the wheel. Taiwan is likely next.

Gramsci was profoundly right when he wrote:

“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters.”