I probably already wrote this article back in 2014. I could almost copy and paste any of my articles from that time, change Nicolás’s name to Delcy’s, and that would say it all.

It’s like we’re back in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016… Back to that tiresome time when the ever-ineffective, self-righteous left, watching from afar with disgust, believes it has the right to judge us. Back to the legacy experts, those who then claimed, with a mixture of indignation and remorse, that Maduro betrayed Chávez’s legacy, and who today, without mincing words, assert that Delcy betrayed Maduro’s legacy. The same ones are back with their sad, tiresome, yet always ego-reeking laments about our path. They’re back to measuring us, expressing their disappointment in us, and trying to convince us that we have strayed from the path because their little book says things aren’t done the way we do them. They’re a bore.

Commentators are distancing themselves from us in the name of their principles. But the distance was always there. The air of superiority, too. If anyone betrayed the Venezuelan Revolution, it was that left wing—those stupid progressives who never accepted Chávez until Fidel blessed him. Those who, in each of our difficult moments—and there have been many—instead of finding ways to support us, dedicate themselves to searching for a speck of dust, a gesture, or a trivial detail that will serve as a pretext to throw us into the enemy’s lair.

Those who reduce revolutionary virtue to a president governing in flip-flops, legalizing marijuana, or declaring himself vegan because “poor cows.” We have already seen it.

The pettiness directed at the Chavista Revolution didn’t begin in Nicolás’s time. Chávez himself seemed just as flawed to them: brilliant, yes, but a “military man (milico),” Black, rebellious, and a prankster—what a lack of seriousness! But the worst part was that he wouldn’t let himself be overthrown. Chávez, according to the narrative of that left wing—which is more lament than narrative—had an unforgivable defect: a thirst for power, instead of the much more desirable and profitable (for their narrative) thirst for martyrdom. And like Chávez, Nicolás.

Nicolás was attacked from the very day Chávez told us he was the one. If they went after Chávez from the ankles, they went after Nicolás from the chest. They didn’t give him a second of the benefit of the doubt. Nor did they sit down, as they never do, to understand the historical moment he had to face. The regional left—blind, deaf, and never mute—turned its back on a man who was fighting. It turned its back on the people who were fighting with him, and with its disgust and its “purity,” it helped to construct the narrative against Venezuela, against our democracy, and against our struggle.

“Sycophants, serial apologists, traitors to the legacy,” they called us, among other things. They singled us out and pointed fingers to make us feel ashamed of doing what Chávez told us to do. “That’s not how it’s done.” But for them, it never was.

Venezuela suffers from the “good daughter” syndrome, always taking the blame. We are world champions in solidarity, yet we receive little in return. Every time we’ve been attacked, instead of receiving support through denunciations and mobilizations against the aggressor, this left wing, clinging to a prestige it doesn’t possess, lashes out at the victim with cowardly accusations and blame. It’s the fault of the girl who was raped for wearing a miniskirt, of course.

From afar, remotely controlled, without taking responsibility for the often-present problems, these pundits not only lecture us on lessons they do not apply in their own spaces, but since we pay them no mind, they choose—in the name of their principles, their prestige, and their ego—to distance themselves from our struggle. It is as if they had spent their lives under the limelight, making it clear that they are not like that, that they demand their “second Vietnam,” but want others to fight it, of course.

Aspiring Ho Chi Minhs—but cardboard cutouts—want us to believe that the only form of dignity and courage lies in tragedy; that those kids who are in their universities today, the many that this revolution created, those kids who arrived at their schools today peacefully, without having to dodge snipers and bombs, those little boys and girls with bright eyes full of dreams, must fill their lives with blood, fire, hatred, and fear, to please the narrative of egomaniacs who believe that there is only one way to walk these paths and that the dignified way to do it is by dying along the way.

Courage is, besides looking the beast in the eye and bringing it to its knees, doing what needs to be done without falling into the foolish trap of believing you have to prove to the whole world how incredibly brave you are, how heroic you are, or how you’re wiping away your crocodile tears with my wounds and my blood. Courage is knowing you are on the right path and not caring what a bunch of complete nobodies—literally—say about you, people who have only ever known how to call you brutes, traitors, and wrong.

Those who forget that Chávez always prioritized life, the preservation of life, as the means to move forward are mistaken. Dead, we serve only as images for T-shirts and posters that line someone else’s pockets. Nicolás, like Chávez, chose peace and life for all. And Delcy now bears the immense responsibility of fulfilling the Chavista mission: preserving our people by staring the monster in the eye during these perilous times of chaos and impunity. Is there any other Cinderella willing to step into her shoes?

It’s the same old story, only more dangerous. Again, the same old faces, arrogantly picking their noses at each other. We all know how this tale, lived and overcome, goes. Years will pass, they will find unacceptable flaws in us at every turn, they will keep playing into the hands of the enemy, and they will remain in their cobwebbed, sad corner, stroking their egos and feeling superior to us.

If that’s what it means to be better, then I will stick with my own kind: the worst, the irreverent trailblazers that we are, those who don’t fall into the inflexible trap of the straight line, those who know how to take detours to get where we want to go. Those who, with cool heads and nerves of steel, without fanfare or chest-thumping, even with everything stacked against us, have always known how to win.

  • Che's Motorcycle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    3 months ago

    I really like this analysis and how it trashes this element of the western “left”. For anyone curious, this is the author’s blurb at the end of the linked article:

    Carola Chavez is a Venezuelan Chavista activist that lived most of her life in the US and is currently base in Margarita Island (Venezuela). She is a twitter influencer and a regular writer for “Con el Mazo Dando” website, Ultimas Noticias and many other Venezuelan outlets.

  • prof_tincoa@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    Chavo del 8 reference in the title? =P

    I’m Brazilian and concerned about the Venezuelan comrades. There are lots of worrisome reports coming from there. But it’s difficult to separate what’s true from what’s western propaganda. They do have difficult decisions to make, and what they need is our support.

    And obviously Brazil (as a country) is gonna fail to support Venezuela. Lula shouldn’t have blocked them from joining BRICS, that was a stupid ass decision that played right into the imperialist hands. Fuck his and his party lack of commitment to anti-imperialist struggle.

  • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    this left wing, clinging to a prestige it doesn’t possess

    they demand their “second Vietnam,” but want others to fight it, of course

    Reminds me of a post someone made on twitter recently of this video, interview with Georges Abdullah who was released from prison last year (after 41 years) https://youtu.be/2HXA4eXt_jw?t=1083

    The one who resists is the one who has the final say and determines what should and should not be done.
    The ultimate decision-maker is the one who sacrifices himself to the resistance. All spectators have no right to discuss any topic.

    (from “Druz Podcast” by the “Arab i” YouTube channel)

    • randomquery [none/use name,any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      In Assata Shakur’s autobiography there was a passage about how she was annoyed by the american left criticizing the Vietnamese communists when they were negotiating with the US to end the Vietnam war, and that was also her sentiment: People who did nothing with nothing at stake for them, criticizing those that gave their lives telling them what they need to do to be proper revolutionaries.

    • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If American leftists really want to inflict a second Vietnam on the empire, they should start at home, start on the territory of the US. They have plenty of guns after all. That would have the greatest beneficial impact in terms of reducing the harm the empire does abroad.

    • AlHouthi4President@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      The one who resists is the one who has the final say and determines what should and should not be done. The ultimate decision-maker is the one who sacrifices himself to the resistance. All spectators have no right to discuss any topic.

  • amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s a really important distinction to make when analyzing what’s going on in any given country. Is someone / some institution actually being comprador/traitor toward their own people (pretty weighty thing to be) or are they struggling to survive / make the most strategic decisions under siege?

    And even when they are comprador/traitor, there is still far more anger deserved at the imperialists who enabled them than the traitor themself. And it is still far more the business of their own people to deal with them than it is for outsiders to judge them for being that; especially outsiders who live in the imperial core and who are doing little to challenge the power of the imperialists.

    Escaping the colonial view means recognizing that the colonized/imperialized lives are as valuable as anyone else. That non-“white” lives are just as valuable as “white” lives. That in times when they are forced to sacrifice for liberation, it isn’t something to romanticize, but to understand as a very grave sacrifice. This is why strategy becomes so pivotal. Not because winning is intrinsically important in some competitive sense of ego, but because for these kind of situations, strategy be the difference in whether a family line survives. Or a whole community. Or a whole culture. The brutality of colonialism and empire forces people to make decisions no one should have to make.

  • big_spoon@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    was that a chavo reference?

    Courage is, besides looking the beast in the eye and bringing it to its knees, doing what needs to be done without falling into the foolish trap of believing you have to prove to the whole world how incredibly brave you are

    yup