Thread by @rosendo_joe

Trump's criminal attacks on #Venezuela are driving its economic policy to the right says a @nytimes article yesterday. Another article, 10 years ago from the @guardian in 2010, said foreign oil companies had Venezuela (then under Chavez) by the throat. What actually gives?

@nytimes @guardian There are kernels of truth in both articles. Under Chavez, Venezuela certainly didn't break with foreign multinationals or economic ties with the US despite its extreme belligerence towards Chavez's government - the kind of thing only a superpower gets away with.

@nytimes @guardian Under Chavez there was (as now) tension within his movement: those who want to break entirely with the Venezuelan elite & others who think a sector of the private sector elite can be made "loyal". Similarly, while Chavismo was/is fiercely committed to independence form the US

@nytimes @guardian Chavez never shut the door on having at least civil relations with the US. Maduro -even now- can't close the door on that entirely. He has made gestures like give some money to Trump's inauguration and (recently) hiring a US lobby firm (which was soon scared off dealing with him)

@nytimes @guardian The point is that the ideological rigidity of the Chavista "revolution" has largely been a caricature invented by the western media - & hardly the most damaging one. Depicting Venezuela as a dictatorship has done far more damage.

@nytimes @guardian But you'll know when Maduro has "betrayed the revolution" - cuz he'll then be getting positive coverage in the places like the @nytimes & @guardian .

@nytimes @guardian When outlets like the @nytimes & @guardian attack a US target from faux "left" perspective, they are just trying to give US aggression a wider ideological appeal