Roberto
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Honestly, the real problem here isn’t just the confusion — it’s the politics behind it.
Talking about “our sovereignty” is precisely the trap socialists are supposed to expose, not fall into.
From a socialist perspective, there is no such thing as working-class sovereignty under capitalism. Britain’s “sovereignty” does not belong to workers; it belongs to the British capitalist state and the class interests it serves. The same is true of the United States, Venezuela, Russia, or any other nation-state. To defend national sovereignty is simply to line up behind one’s own ruling class in the global competition between capitalist powers.
Yes, US military intervention against Venezuela should be opposed — not because it violates “our sovereignty,” but because it represents imperialist conflict between capitalist states in which workers on all sides are used as pawns. Substituting class analysis for nationalist rhetoric is not a minor detail; it is the difference between socialism and left-wing patriotism.
The task of socialists is not to defend Britain against the US, nor Venezuela against the US, nor any state against another.
It is to make clear that the working class has no country, and that the real enemy is the capitalist system itself — everywhere.Venezuela: what has really happened so far
Recent events in Venezuela have been presented as a fight for democracy by some, and as an imperialist attack by others. Both explanations miss the main point.
The United States did not act to help Venezuelan workers or to defend freedom. Like any major power, it acted to protect its own economic and strategic interests, using the language of human rights and security as justification.
At the same time, the Venezuelan state never represented the interests of the working majority. Long before recent events, workers faced low wages, inflation, repression, and mass emigration under a government that claimed to rule in their name.
What is happening now is not a real social change but, at best, a change of managers of the same system. As long as Venezuela remains a capitalist society based on wages, markets, and state power, the living conditions of most people will not fundamentally improve.
Talk of national sovereignty, betrayal, or choosing between the US, China, or other powers only hides the reality: this is a struggle between rival states, not a fight for the well-being of ordinary people.
Workers in Venezuela, like workers everywhere, have nothing to gain from sanctions, military pressure, or regime changes. The problem is not one leader or one country, but a global system that puts power and profit before human needsHeavy gunfire erupts near presidential palace in Caracas – media (VIDEOS)
Soldiers and armored vehicles were seen in Venezuelan capital amid reports of a coup attempt
Heavy gunfire erupts near presidential palace in Caracas – media (VIDEOS)
Heavy gunfire was reported outside the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas on Monday, just days after President Nicolas Maduro was abducted during a US special forces raid.This news from RT
I don’t think it makes sense to talk about a “war on Russia or China” as if they were isolated villains. What we are seeing is not a deviation, but the normal functioning of capitalism on a global scale. States compete with each other because they represent different economic interests, and when that competition intensifies, it takes on military, economic, or technological forms.
Russia, China, the United States, and Europe are not defending humanity or superior moral models; they are defending their own national economies. None of them acts outside the logic of capital, and therefore no war between them can benefit the working class, wherever they live.
If there are more conflicts in the future—direct or indirect—it won’t be because of cultural evil or ideologies, but because a system based on accumulation, markets, and nation-states needs to expand and runs into its own limits. As long as this system exists, wars are not an exception: they are a consequence.
From this perspective, taking sides with one bloc or another is accepting the narrative of power. The only coherent position is to reject nationalism, understand that workers do not have opposing interests with each other, and recognize that war will only disappear when the system that produces it disappears.I believe there is some truth to the speculation that he was betrayed by internal elements of the military, that Trump was given a way out, and that this was followed by a government of national unity bringing together elements of the old oligarchy or bourgeoisie with the new one. If that is the case, then perhaps nothing more will happen. As for the lefts who speak of the end of the United States, that is something I have been hearing since my youth, and so far the country continues to do whatever it wants in this region.
In the TV series El Señor de los Cielos, cartels from different countries are shown fighting over markets, stealing drugs from one another, and competing for absolute control. What appears as fiction closely resembles the logic of contemporary geopolitics. Power blocs behave like organized cartels: the Washington cartel seeks to dominate its traditional sphere of influence, the Moscow cartel controls its own territory, and the Beijing cartel expands within its area. Different flags, same logic. Beyond ideology and rhetoric, these struggles are driven by power, resources, and control. And, as always, it is the peoples—the ordinary men and women—who suffer the economic, social, and human consequences of a war they did not choose.
The mouthpiece of the U.S. capitalist class, elected by millions of workers, declared that he would “take back everything that was stolen from them.” This statement implicitly assumes that the United States is the rightful owner of Latin America—and, by extension, of the entire world and its resources.
It is the same old Macondo: from a very young age, I have watched the same patterns of domination by the North American capitalist class repeat themselves again and again.Argentina-IMF Relationship under Milei
Record Borrowing: Argentina is the IMF’s largest borrower, with an outstanding debt of over $40 billion.
New $20 Billion Program: In April 2025, the IMF executive board approved a new 48-month, $20 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF) arrangement to support Milei’s economic stabilization program. This was seen as a strong endorsement of his aggressive austerity measures and fiscal consolidation efforts.
Immediate Disbursement: The deal was notable for an immediate disbursement of $12 billion to bolster Argentina’s critically low foreign exchange reserves, an unusual move for the IMF.
Conditions: The agreement is tied to strict policy implementation, including a “zero-overall deficit target” and market-oriented reforms. Reviews of the program continue, with a recent review in July 2025 enabling a further disbursement of about $2 billion.
Argentina’s Stance on Russia
Geopolitical Realignment: President Milei has explicitly realigned Argentina’s foreign policy with the United States and other Western nations, viewing this as a move away from countries he considers “communist” or adversarial, including Russia and China.
BRICS Rejection: As part of this new foreign policy, Argentina formally renounced its planned membership in the BRICS economic alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), a decision that reduced its potential alternative financing options.
No Bilateral Agreement: The publicly available information indicates no trade, investment, or IMF-related agreement between Argentina and Russia under the Milei administration. The focus has been on Western financial support.According to polls up to today, the majority of surveys in the United States are against a war with Venezuela.
Here, as you know, the Democratic Party is a sham opposition, and the left is almost nonexistent.
I can’t imagine another prolonged war, and people are talking more and more about the high cost of everything.The Bolshevik Revolution and the Cuban Revolution—that is, the so-called socialist revolutions—did more harm to the possibility of a socialist world.
Today a coworker told me that he heard Donald Trump speaking, saying that everything is fine. He told me that it’s not true, that everything is more expensive and that unemployment is rising, and that it’s all a lie.
I told him that politicians don’t control the economy, that it’s capitalism, and that it doesn’t matter who is in power—left-wing or right-wing politicians just pass the hot potato around. He listened to me, but he no longer has any hope, and when I talked to him about socialism, for him that has already failed.
This struggle—to raise the consciousness of the working class—is millennia old.
Citizen of the world,
I agree with you: most workers accept things as if they cannot be changed and that’s just the way they are, period. And if you talk to them about what is happening, they see you like Christians who preach the end of the world.
Propaganda and entertainment, nationalism, etc., are too overwhelming…
Is it the workers’ fault, or the system’s fault?I agree with the SPGB that workers should not take sides in capitalist disputes and that our interest lies in peace, since it is always workers who die in their wars. Both the United States and Venezuela are capitalist states, and any conflict between them would be a clash of ruling classes, not a struggle for our emancipation.
At the same time, it is clear that if a military attack were to take place, workers in the country under attack would be compelled to defend themselves, not out of choice but out of necessity. This, however, does not turn national defense into a progressive cause. It remains a defense of a capitalist state, not of the working class as such.
From a socialist point of view, the task of workers is not to choose between aggressor and victim among capitalist powers, but to oppose all forms of nationalism and militarism, and to maintain international working-class solidarity. Supporting one state against another only reinforces the system that produces war in the first place.
Therefore, while we can recognize the reality of aggression and the human suffering it entails, we should not politically support any capitalist government or war effort. The only consistent position is class against class, and the struggle for a world beyond capitalism, where such wars would no longer arise.
