news
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
view the rest of the comments
part 2 of 2
Against the ‘Safe’ BetThis brings us back to the defeatist declarations of Left intellectuals that I was mentioning earlier, who insist that the Bolivarian Revolution has already ended, that the government has capitulated, that what remains is little more than a hollow shell. From the outside, this can appear as realism. From within, it reflects a profound misunderstanding of the process. At its core lies a failure to grasp irreversibility.
Those who declare or imply that everything has been lost tend to focus on the government as if it were the sole repository of the revolution. From that perspective, any concession or retreat appears as definitive proof of collapse. What disappears from view is the accumulated political experience of millions of people who have learned, over decades, to organize, deliberate, and act collectively—and, through that practice, are also able to identify errors, advance critique, and push for rectification when needed.
This omission is not neutral. It often reflects either a Eurocentric lens that renders the Global South’s political subject invisible, or a crude geopolitical lens that privileges institutional form over lived experience and underestimates the agency of organized people. From that vantage point, the revolution becomes something that can be declared “over” from afar. From where I stand, that claim does not hold. ** Declaring that “it’s over” is not simply an analytical mistake; it has political consequences. It makes it harder to struggle in a very difficult historical moment, contributes to demoralization, and weakens the collective capacity to navigate difficult terrain. ** It is always, of course, a much “safer” intellectual wager to declare capitulation, to distance oneself, to preserve analytical purity—it is safer since the reality on the ground is rarely pretty and never certain. But that is a wager made from the outside. Within the Bolivarian Process, the defining feature has been different: a refusal to abandon the struggle while conditions remain open. Moreover, accusations of treason or capitulation are not only false but also politically harmful. They flatten complex dynamics into moral judgments and obscure the strategic terrain on which the process unfolds.
This is not simply a question of competing narratives, but of how reality itself is produced and understood. In Venezuela, these narratives encounter a specific difficulty: they collide with a politically organized movement that has learned to interpret reality together.
There are, of course, decisions in which people do not participate directly, but the debate is always present. Moreover, in robust communes, life does not follow a logic imposed from above; it is produced together, forged in assemblies and in everyday practices. That is why listening to the Chavista base—sometimes critical of specific policies but supportive of the government—matters: it makes it possible to distinguish between what is said about our reality and what is actually lived.
To defend the Bolivarian Revolution in 2026, then, is not only to denounce external aggression. It is to defend and deepen the processes through which a pueblo is learning to govern itself. And what has been learned does not disappear with a policy shift or a moment of retreat. It persists as capacity and consciousness. And that, of course, has material implications in the struggle.
There are no guarantees of victory. Revolutionary processes unfold in adverse conditions, shaped to some degree by forces that are often beyond their control. Marx compared the revolution to a mole that might go underground but remained a telluric force. What exists in Venezuela today is not an exhausted project waiting to collapse. It is a people that has learned—unevenly but decisively—to organize, to study reality, and to struggle collectively.
That accumulated experience cannot be dismissed or wished away. Nor can it be abandoned in favor of the intellectually “safe” prediction of defeat. Chavismo, forged through years of struggle and marked by a historical accumulation of political learning, remains a force with the capacity to defend, correct if necessary, and advance the process.
I am again finding myself reading something written by someone way more experienced and knowledgeable than me that is pretty much laying out the same analysis I was just saying here days prior. Using the same analytical tools, you too could learn to understand things as a Marxist instead of just rolling over for imperialist narratives and uncritically repeating them without evidence.
Borrowing from the language of this excellent piece, anyone pushing imperialist narratives about Venezuela from the left right or center is doing the pedagogical work of imperialism. You are a putting in work to enforce the imperialist ideological narratives which are blatantly anti-Marxist. You are erasing the ongoing movement which millions are actively engaged with over decades in an attempt to make people think you are smart by distancing yourself from actual revolutionaries in case they lose. You care more about "I told you so" than anything even vaguely resembling integrity as an actual leftist, which yes, does require a spine to be more than a role playing exercise. You have to actually stand up to difficult things with courage and not just fold constantly and run away from conflict.
This is doing exactly what imperialists and colonizers want you to do, because it is what they are doing. You are doing what they are doing. You are on the same team. You too have erased millions of humans and reduced them down to fit into your colonial image of them as a subjugated people deprived of all agency. You too have plucked out a handful of scenarios from the vast and ongoing movement of time and used them to construct a thin attempt at analysis which falls apart immediately if you take even a cursory glance at the information available and use it to form your analysis instead of bourgeois news headlines. I'm not in Venezuela and yet with the information I have available, I can come to the same conclusions as someone actively on the ground there. Anyone can do that, and many people have. If you haven't, you could choose to just not speak on things you don't know about, but if you are actively perpetuating the imperialist line you are a counter revolutionary, plain and simple. You are actively fighting in the disinformation campaign against Venezuela on the side of the US.
When Mao said combat liberalism, this is one of the the types of shit he was talking about, and some people here not only let it slide, they embrace it. Why? Why would you embrace liberalism to such an extreme and overt degree? Could it be that you are also a liberal that has never struggled for anything? The millions of Chavistas who have been actively struggling for their revolution for almost three decades certainly can't give up on their movement, but it is very easy for some liberal on the internet to wear the skin of leftism and shamble around proclaiming that a revolution has died because the imperialist news has declared it so, and to even go further to claim that such a fetid and rotting perspective is not only correct but the correct Marxist position. It has been appalling to see a lot of people who I assume identify with the left since they are here, but can't identify with Marxist analysis, can't identify with revolutionaries engaged in struggle, and can't help themselves but doom because of imperialist headlines written with the sole purpose of convincing people that Bolivarianism is dead despite the millions of active participants and decades of struggle. Again, you don't have to attempt to engage with things you don't know about. It is fine to just lurk or ask questions without declaring yourself to be someone who is (hopefully) volunteering to help imperialists out by spreading and agreeing with their perspectives.
I have always welcomed valid critiques and commentary on the failures of any leftist or left movement. There are plenty of tactical defeats to look at with Venezuela this year, and doing so honestly is essential. But wreckers pretending to "critique from the left" while just repeating bourgeois news outlets and providing no real evidence to support their claims, refusing to engage with counter arguments, constantly strawmanning or changing the subject are not engaging in valid discussion on the topic and only work to sell the lines of the state department. It ceases to be leftist discourse and needs to be fought against or else it is just inoculating a bunch of well meaning baby leftists with doomer brain worms
This is basically the vast majority of criticisms on social media. Criticism is supposed to be directed at the people or org you are criticizing for the sake of them correcting themselves instead of being shouted at the ether to randos. Critique of the Gotha Programme was originally a private letter that Marx wrote to the SDAP that only got published when Marx died and the party moved on to drafting the Erfurt Programme.