Hugo Chávez emerged onto the political scene in 1992, leading a failed attempt to overthrow then-President Carlos Andrés Pérez, accompanied by a contingent of insurgent military men. The attempt failed, resulting in the arrest of Chávez and his associates. However, the event propelled him to national prominence and generated a strong base of popular support. In 1997, Chávez orchestrated the formation of a coalition involving left-wing and center-left parties to run for president, thus embarking on what Friedrich Hayek would call the “Road to Serfdom.”
Nicolás Maduro, his successor, rigorously followed the same script outlined by Chávez. Immediately before the elections, state television aired a laudatory documentary, extolling Chávez and his contribution to the construction of the Bolivarian Revolution or the “Socialism of the 21st Century,” as he himself called it. The intention was clear: to strengthen the regime by elevating Chávez to the status of a mythical figure, while Maduro recognizes the ongoing need for propaganda to sustain his rule.
Socialist rhetoric is uniform, regardless of location. Initially, its proponents present themselves as populist candidates, achieving high popularity and bringing together diverse segments of society — from the military, religious, intellectuals, the press, to nationalists and socialists. However, as socialist policies fail to promote the promised economic growth, news of attempted coups d’état begins to emerge. Popular discontent grows, culminating in protests. According to the official narrative, such demonstrations represent a threat to economic stability.
The next steps are well known. First, a government needs to be “firm” in order to establish order, which usually means starting to crack down on those pesky freedoms like speech and the right to bear arms. Take Venezuela, for example: they’ve gone so far in their disarmament policies that even slingshots have been banned.
In Brazil, the Lula government tried to follow the same script, but was ridiculously frustrated by the incompetence of his successor, who ended up being impeached by Congress. This opened the door for Bolsonaro’s election, preventing the script from being enacted with all the acts.
Socialist rhetoric is persistently predictable: it identifies and demonizes so-called internal enemies—labeling them as fascists, rightists, or nationalists—who supposedly hinder the glorious revolutionary process. At the same time, it turns its rhetorical weapons against external adversaries such as imperialism, foreign debt, and economic sanctions, painting them as the real threats to the people’s well-being.
This defense mechanism is a constant. For decades, Cuba has blamed its extreme poverty and economic hardship on the US embargo, presenting it as the main villain in its economic tragedy. Meanwhile, Venezuela, in an equally desperate situation, blames international sanctions for its sky-high inflation rates and the steep devaluation of its currency, the bolivar, leading to abrupt changes in its economic policy. In both cases, these regimes divert attention from the failure of their own economic policies, using these accusations as a shield to cover up the ineffectiveness and failures of socialism to deliver prosperity or stability.
As socialist regimes consolidate their power, they invariably gain control over crucial institutions such as the judiciary, the military, and the intellectual community. The rhetoric employed by these governments becomes progressively more radical. Thus, founded on seemingly solid foundations, these administrations reach the apex of their rule, which is at once tragic and absolute. And then, as Ludwig von Mises had already meticulously explained in his seminal work “Economic Calculation in a Socialist Society“, the system begins its inevitable collapse. Faced with these failures, apologists for these regimes are quick to claim that what is manifesting is not “true socialism.”
Sections of the Brazilian press are already rewriting the narrative, claiming that Maduro has veered to the right, corrupting the ideals of 21st-century socialism. This is a ridiculous attempt to disassociate oneself from the obvious failure by proclaiming that Maduro is “not left-wing,” a maneuver that sounds more like a joke. It is widely known that both Maduro and Lula are central figures in Latin American socialism, linked by the São Paulo Forum, an organization founded by Lula, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez.
Recently, Amapá Senator Randolfe Rodrigues pathetically attempted to dissociate himself from Maduro in a video, claiming that Maduro is now following in Bolsonaro’s footsteps. This type of strategy involves creating a fictitious enemy to divert attention from the failings of one’s own ideological allies.
Maduro, always ready for a spectacle, released a “bombshell” video claiming that Elon Musk, not content with revolutionizing transportation and space exploration, decided to hack the Venezuelan electoral system, preventing the release of the electoral records.
The most alarming thing is that, as the situation worsens, Venezuela is heading towards a possible civil war. Many have already lost their lives in the protests, and the future is uncertain. We can only wait and hope that the worst can be avoided, while reflecting on Ludwig von Mises’ predictions: socialism, no matter how it is disguised, is doomed to failure due to its own internal contradictions.
Isaiah Lobao is a professor of History and Theology.
#Maduro #Supreme #Court #controlling #judiciary #predictable #socialism