Based on an initial commentary published in CriticAtac.ro
On Friday, January 10, 2025, Nicolás Maduro was inaugurated in a heavily militarized ceremony in the capital city of Caracas. The event was highly controversial given the accusations of electoral fraud and repression of the opposition directed at the so-called winner of the elections—a political leader who now garners support primarily from regimes traditionally hostile to the current global order (such as Putin’s regime or the former Assad regime). However, an interesting aspect is the support some far-right forces extend to these regimes as part of their international strategy.
Diana Șoșoacă, leader of the far-right SOS Romania party, caused a stir in the Romanian press after appearing in a live broadcast from Maduro’s inauguration ceremony. This occurred while, according to the Party for Socialism and Liberty (PSL) in Venezuela, the regime’s military and police forces conducted another crackdown during the ceremony, resulting in 49 arrests. This development should raise serious questions for multiple leftist forces worldwide that have offered uncritical support to Maduro’s regime, as well as for parts of the fragile Romanian left frequently seen at Venezuelan embassy events. These groups often claim antifascism as one of their primary causes, yet they now find themselves aligned with some of Romania’s most obscene far-right politicians. In this context, it is worth critically examining the “popular front” strategy (with supposedly anti-imperialist bourgeois forces) proposed by the right-wing of communist movements in various scenarios. Supporting the rotten Maduro regime on such bases ultimately leads, in the name of consistency, to a common front with Diana Șoșoacă in Romania.
What Happened in Venezuela? Fraud and Repression
On July 28, 2024, presidential elections were held in Venezuela. The main candidates were Nicolás Maduro, representing the regime and supported by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and Edmundo Gonzales, representing the Democratic Unitary Platform (PUD), founded by Juan Guaidó and led by María Corina Machado. The PUD was supported actively by a section of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela and US imperialism.
Maduro claimed victory after a process that several domestic and international reporters deemed fraudulent. Numerous opposition candidates, whether from the right or the left/communist opposition, were barred from appearing on the ballot. Notably, the candidacy of Manuel Isidro Molina, backed by the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), was blocked. The PCV had supported Maduro until a few years ago, when his regime accelerated its undermining of democratic freedoms. There was active police repression of the opposition’s campaign, including the arrest of individuals who provided food and lodging to Gonzales’ campaign.
Several leftist opposition parties, including PSL (from the Trotskyist tradition) and the PCV (from the Stalinist tradition), rejected the official election results, accusing the regime of fraud and urging the masses to mobilize in defense of the people’s will and democratic rights. Statements translated into multiple languages supported these positions. PPT, a party that backed Chávez during his nearly 14 years in power, also denounced the fraud and called for discussions on launching a national strike.
Protests erupted in Caracas and other major cities following the elections, with large numbers of people mobilizing against the fraud. The PCV and PSL also called for popular mobilization. The fact that a critical mass of people took to the streets reflects both material dissatisfaction and frustration over the erosion of democratic freedoms, which Venezuelans attribute to the regime.
The Political Landscape in Venezuela: The Nature of Maduro’s Regime
When Chavez came to power and initiated a left turn in policies adopted in Venezuela, the popular masses rallied behind him. Internationally, this led to a huge wave of solidarity by the Left and at the same time it ignited a ferocious attack by the governments and the Right all over the world. While ordinary people, especially in Latin America, were looking towards Venezuela with hope, the Right tried to demonize Chavez and identify the regime with ‘evil communism’. Although a full analysis is above the scope of this article, we can say that the fact that Chavez, although very revolutionary in rhetoric, did not go beyond capitalism, has led the ‘venezuelan socialism’ in a degenerating course. This course, in terms of the economy and democratic rights, was embodied in Maduro.
This was exemplified in Maduro’s statement (heavily criticized by Lula da Silva) regarding territorial claims over two-thirds of Guyana: “We are a military power, we are a police power, and the civilian-military-police unity, I say so as a leader.”
The majority of Venezuela’s industry and economy remains private, and under Maduro, there has been another wave of privatizations. In 2024, the minimum wage in Venezuela stood at $3.50. Union leaders have been arrested, abortion is completely illegal, and political attacks on women are common. Significant environmental destruction occurs through illegal mining. Police brutality remains a recurring issue, with many young people killed, and paramilitary groups armed to serve government interests. Even part of Chávez’s political base has turned against Maduro for these reasons.
Criminal sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the U.S., Canada, the EU, Mexico, and Switzerland have exacerbated astronomical inflation and led to shortages of food, medicine, and fuel, creating one of the worst humanitarian crises in South America.
The opposition represented by PUD and Machado is clearly a “bourgeois opposition” that opposes chavismo with bourgeois democracy. Gonzales is a candidate supported by American imperialism in exchange for promises to implement a series of neoliberal measures. The coalition around PUD also calls for international sanctions against the country and blames “socialism” for the regime’s failures. The significant vote in favor of PUD does not reflect that it represents the interests of the masses but is rather an anti-regime vote. Leftist opposition organizations denouncing the fraud and calling for genuine respect of the popular vote have done so on principle, not because they place any illusions in PUD.
The Venezuelan left did not adopt a united front approach to the elections, despite being prevented from presenting a candidate and program. The Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) supported Enrique Marquez and placed its hopes in him as a third candidate who might form a third political pole—one for workers, opposed to chavismo and PUD—that could take power. The PCV effectively dissolved itself into Marquez’s campaign, which was not dominated by communists; rather, they remained a marginal force. Other leftist factions proposed solutions similar to those implemented in Zapatista territories (although we have heard less about how they would adapt to the needs of a complex industrial society, quite different from those of Central America’s rural populations).
Trotskyists (mainly PSL, MS, and LTS) encouraged the annulment of the vote under the slogan “The working class has no candidate,” while simultaneously proposing some programmatic demands, such as raising the minimum wage. The support offered by some segments of the Western left for Maduro’s regime—including the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which sent a delegation in July 2024 to meet with Maduro—reflects not only a failure to articulate revolutionary and internationalist solutions but also a disconnection from reality and an inability to objectively assess the nature of a political regime. These approaches alienate a significant portion of the oppressed masses in such states and their diasporas, especially in situations where asylum seekers face attacks from the far right. If we aim to fight the global capitalist system, it is vital not to ignore the direct experiences of oppression suffered by individuals and groups, even when those acts of oppression are carried out by regimes employing anti-imperialist rhetoric.
Maduro’s Alignments
In conditions of increasing international isolation, receiving criticism even from governments like those in Chile and Brazil, we can expect Maduro’s regime to pivot further toward “sovereignist” zones frequented by Trump and his allies. Venezuela’s Attorney General, Tarek William Saab, is already known for spreading far-right conspiracy theories, claiming that LGBTQ+ people and the COVID-19 pandemic are part of a “globalist plan.” Diana Șoșoacă’s presence at the inauguration could therefore be just one small piece of a complex constellation of global phenomena.
Some global far-right forces now aim to construct their own “common fronts” with forces opposed to the current geopolitical order (characterized by the declining hegemony of the U.S.) and the socio-political order (characterized, in their view, by “liberalism,” which they equate with a globalized economy and democratic or minority rights). For them, the nation is the fundamental unit, and they act as the political representatives of national bourgeoisies threatened by expropriation by transnational capital. Consequently, any “patriot,” regardless of their wing of capital, is seen as a potential ally.
These theories echo the observations of figures like Aleksandr Dugin, who, in 2021, published a manifesto calling for a common front against new forms of liberalism, which he described as “totalitarian” and “anti-human.” In such a front, proponents of the Fourth Political Theory (an eclectic mix of realpolitik, geopolitics, organicism, and esotericism) would join forces with nationalists and “anti-globalist leftists.” Other right-wing theorists, such as Alain de Benoist, have reframed ethno-nationalism in a new way, envisioning a world where all cultures and civilizations are “equal but different” and should therefore develop independently within pre-established geographical boundaries.
Will the Left Fall into This Trap?
The question remains: to what extent will the Left fall into this trap and participate in such “fronts,” or will it meekly follow the lead of nationalist bourgeois forces? According to the analyses of certain neo-Stalinist groups and currents, “popular fronts” between communists and the national (and nationalist) bourgeoisies of states outside the core of the global capitalist system are necessary to fight against imperialism and neo-colonial exploitation. Others, following a Maoist line, identify a “primary contradiction” between imperialism and everyone else, while the class contradiction becomes a “secondary contradiction.” The logical conclusion of these analyses, unless we engage in spectacular mental gymnastics, is that the objective situation in Romania should push these forces toward forming a popular front with Diana Șoșoacă and the SOS party. If Maduro’s Bonapartism, the national-bourgeois forces backing him, and the repression they maintain are not sufficient reasons for differentiation, then it is hard to imagine what could make Ms. Senator Șoșoacă or the elusive Călin Georgescu any less acceptable partners.
We are left, therefore, with one conclusion: to the extent that such a popular front will exist in Romania, it will necessarily need to include Diana Șoșoacă to remain a coherent project. Otherwise, it will not be a popular front—but a united front of groups capable of lucidly assessing the surrounding political realities and deriving a line that does not subordinate class contradictions. This latter distinction will define and differentiate any emancipatory political construction.
