RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
Ep 371 Greg Wilpert Discusses Trump’s Attack On Venezuela
Episode 371 of Revolution Z has as guest Greg Wilpert, founder of Venezuela Analysis, who discusses the role of oil, power, Trump, Maduro, and which way Venezuela. Wilpert tracks the quiet recalibration of demands coming from Washington—curbs on drugs that aren't real, and on migration caused by sanctions. Vague “terror” charges that are projections at best, and a push for oil access that has actually been offered earlier albeit with fewer controls—alongside a court case that tests the boundary between domestic law and international immunity. If the aim of kidnapping Maduro is optics that establish that Trump can use the American military whenever and wherever and however he unilaterally chooses, what does a “victory” look like, and who will pay the price?
What are the mechanics and effects of sanctions? How have they hollowed out revenues, warped trade, and driven migration that is in turn used to justify more pressure. Wilpert explains why Venezuela’s heavy crude isn’t the easy prize it’s portrayed to be. High costs, slow ramp-up, and market dynamics will blunt returns not least but not only as climate impact mounts. The gap between oil rhetoric and oil reality and between governing rhetoric and governing reality matter because the truth about each clarifies whether policy is about energy security or political theater. Meanwhile, protests and public perception will begin to swirl around the Maduro trial, the one contested issue that neither side can easily negotiate and still claim to have won. And ultimately, the deeper issue is precedent—what changes when a superpower uses massive militarism to kidnap and then prosecute a foreign leader despite international norms much less on nonsense charges?
Midway, Greg previews his forthcoming book on developing consciousness for a post-capitalist commons. Structures like cooperatives, communes, and creative commons only thrive when everyday practices dismantle informal hierarchies and embed equal voice. He maps the mindsets that either reproduce domination or make shared power real, connecting movement culture to durable democracy.
We close by zooming out to the so-called “Donroe Doctrine” which, supposing it lasts, would generate a move toward spheres of influence and away from enforceable international law, raising the risk of multiple escalations and even nuclear miscalculation. If that’s the road ahead, Wilpert urges that we need a clearer vision for global rules, accountability, and economic relations that don’t weaponize dependence.
Hello, my name is Michael Albert, and I'm the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our three hundred and seventy first consecutive episode. And since each one is geared not to the news cycle of the moment, but to overarching issues and especially division and strategy, supposing you are just now encountering Revolution Z, I hope you will consider giving attention to earlier episodes as well as this one. In any case, for this episode, I have as my guest Greg Wilpert. Greg is a German American sociologist and journalist who has extensively covered Latin America for a wide range of publications. He holds a PhD in sociology from Brandeis University in 1994, and is the author of Changing Venezuela by Taking Power, the History and Policies of the Chavez Government. He is the co-founder of the website Venezuela Analysis, was director of the Telesor English website, and was the host and managing editor for the Real News Network for five years, from well, until 2020, yeah. His forthcoming book in April of this coming year with Bloomsbury Books is titled Developing Consciousness for the Post-Capitalist Commons. I should probably add, he is a friend of mine, and I worked with him on Telesor, among other connections. So thank you, Greg. I know you're busy, especially now, and I appreciate you sharing with me and Revolution Z listeners your take on the unfolding events.
SPEAKER_02:My pleasure. Thanks for inviting me.
SPEAKER_01:I'm not even sure where to start. The mendacity, hypocrisy, I don't know, outright thuggery on display are enormous. But I think our listeners are already likely familiar with uh with that. Perhaps perhaps you could indicate what you think is likely to be the Venezuelan response over coming weeks and months uh to what has occurred. What do you think might occur inside Venezuela, and how do you think this might unfold?
SPEAKER_02:Okay, well, the prediction business is always very risky and difficult. But um, I mean, there's there's some interesting things that I've noticed that not too many people have commented on, and so I'd like to focus in on that. Maybe that'll give some insights. That is um the main thing is actually not so much what's happening within Venezuela. I think things within Venezuela are pretty much playing out the way I would have expected so far. Uh that is, with uh the new, the, you know, the former vice president, now acting uh acting president Desil Rodriguez, um basically insisting on the return of uh Nicolas, the president Nicolas Maduro, and uh and the country rallying behind the government essentially. Uh sure, there's some people in the opposition who are, of course, cheering um Maduro's removal, but uh but I would say by and large, the most of the country is uh is actually rallying behind the government. But uh what is interesting, I think, is not so much what's happening within Venezuela, but more as to what might happen in the future, given kind of what uh the Trump administration is doing and uh uh what it is saying it wants from uh Venezuela. That is what was really interesting is that, first of all, when Trump announced the uh action on uh January 3rd, he immediately threw uh the opposition under the bus, immediately basically discarded the possibility of Maria Corona Machado or anyone from the opposition really, uh, to be taking over uh the government anytime soon. And that was very, very surprising because after all, everybody kind of expected uh Maduro to uh sorry, Trump, I mean, to uh uh put that, so to speak, as the number one demand. But that was like it wasn't even under consideration, it seems. And then uh when uh Marco Rubio uh spoke, I think it was on Face of the Nation on Sunday, he outlined a whole bunch of different things that he wanted demands from Venezuela, uh, but uh change in government wasn't among them. And so that was really quite surprising as well. And as a matter of fact, the demands that he outlined for uh the Venezuelan government are actually technically things that would not be so difficult for Venezuela to do. So it seems like, to me at least, that uh at least on the Trump side, he's looking for a way to basically settle this matter uh matter and move on and declare a win. And um and this could, of course, be that um that Daisy Rodriguez might end up agreeing to some of these demands because some of them are ludicrous in the first place. Uh for example, uh one of the I mean, first of all, the the the I mean the main one, of course, on paper or whatever, the main official demand always has been, you know, to stop trafficking uh drugs uh from Venezuela to the United States. Well, that never really was a big issue in the first place. So it's not like a like a no-brainer for the Venezuelan government to say, sure, we'll stop them, whatever. Um then um then the other demand was to stop sending uh criminals and uh migrants from Venezuela to the US. Well, that can be easily solved. You just need to stop the sanctions, and there won't be an economic reason for people to move to the US. Then there was a demand about not harboring terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Colombian FARC, or ELN. Well, all of those are pretty much bogus anyway. Uh, I mean, maybe there's some FARC presence in Venezuela, but it's not as extensive as they always claim. So it wouldn't be such a big deal for Venezuela to concede that point. So the other major, and this one might be a little bit trickier for Venezuela to concede, but I don't really see the government really uh uh resisting it, which is the whole thing about the oil. Um that is uh the the United States, I mean Trump keeps on insisting that the US should have free access or whatever, open access to Venezuelan oil production. Uh as a matter of fact, uh Venezuela wants that. It wants right now oil and investment in its oil industry. The main sticking point has been the sanctions and and um the um maybe some of the legal requirements about investing in Venezuela that is uh that joint ventures have to be at least 50% uh owned by the Venezuelan government. Well, it could just change that law and change the percentage, especially since Venezuela itself doesn't really have the capital to match the investment funds. So I'm sure that that might be something that they would concede on if it would increase production. Not only that, uh US oil companies are probably not even that interested in investing in Venezuela at the moment. Uh, this is something I've heard from some other commentators, uh, and I think it seems plausible to me. The price of oil is quite low right now, which and Venezuelan oil is expensive to produce, especially when you have an oil industry that has pretty much been run into the ground by the sanctions. Uh and so uh it's unlikely that that so much uh there's going to be so much investment or interest in investing in Venezuelan oil production. So that might be a non-starter in the first place, where the government just says, sure, you're welcome, but you know, nobody's really taking it. So it's not much of a concession. Um and uh so what else? I mean, there those are really the main demands that Rubio outlined. Another major one, though, that would be difficult uh for uh Venezuela to concede would be cutting off relations with Cuba. That's of course Rubio's favorite uh issue, and uh and I don't know if they would maybe they could just do something symbolic in that area and and let uh Rubio uh you know count that as a win or so, in just in the name of you know uh getting rid of the sanctions. Now, of course, the big thing, uh another big sticking point is of course the Venezuelan demand, uh, which is that um that, sorry, I've got background noises here. I hope that's not interfering too much. Um that uh the the big demand though that comes from the Venezuelan side that the uh US is unlikely to concede is of course the return of Maduro and uh Celia Flores, his wife. So that is uh of course going to be a huge sticking point, and I don't know how that's going to play out. And there's a whole issue also of how the trial against Maduro will play out, which we can talk about as well, because there's also some interesting news on that front. I think they could actually come to an agreement of sorts. Um both sides could play uh present it as a win. And uh that would be, of course, positive on some uh in a way, because it would mean that no invasion and uh perhaps even uh a reduction or of or of the sanctions against Venezuela.
SPEAKER_01:Can anything like what you just described happen without Maduro being let go?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, that I don't know. Um it's it's that's very hard to say. Of course, there's been a lot of speculation where people say claim that uh Desio Rodriguez and other people from the inner circle made a deal with the Trump administration. I kind of I can't really believe that. Uh but uh you know who knows? I mean, I don't know what's happened what's happened behind the scenes. I find that very, very difficult to believe. But um so I don't know. I mean that's uh that's the big question. I just have no answer to that.
SPEAKER_01:So now look at it from the other side. So Trump is I don't know whether what he's doing at four o'clock in the morning or whatever, but he decides to go ahead with this and he drops a bunch of bombs and he gets Maduro out. Does he just have no idea what he's doing? So he doesn't he doesn't distinguish between after that we have to go in and run the country, as he says, which seems to me to be ludicrous, or we have to lose. I mean, you know, what's in his head? Is he establishing a precedent? We can do whatever we want with a procedure which is gonna show that he can't do whatever he wants. It's hard to talk about Trump. It's hard to talk about the world nowadays because nothing makes sense.
SPEAKER_02:I know. But actually, I do think that the key to understanding Trump is really that he's all about image and perception. And um, if he can uh make this look like a win, he's gonna say, oh, we won uh bigly, and you know, that all this was an amazing success and uh and all of that, and uh and you know he could make it believable because you know they caught the biggest drug trafficker of the Western Hemisphere, and um and they opened the Venezuelan oil fields to US investment, and there's not so many uh migrants and drugs coming across the border and so on.
SPEAKER_01:They they're just they could just claim all of that and say, hey, but they can't claim Maduro unless Maduro is still here, still in the US.
SPEAKER_02:True. Unless uh and uh yeah, that's right. They probably that's why they they probably won't let go of Maduro, I agree. Um and uh in the longer term, the only thing that I can see happening for Maduro to return would be some sort of uh if Venezuela had some kind of leverage, like let's say US prisoners or something that they could exchange them for, um, but not not under the Trump administration, so I doubt it's gonna happen in the next three years. But after that, I think that might be a possibility.
SPEAKER_01:So you're you're suggesting that at least uh conceivable, you think plausible and maybe even probable outcome is that the trial goes ahead, everything else is sort of negotiated, and that's the end of it. Meanwhile, he's he's talking about Cuba, he's talking about Colombia, he's talking about Mexico, and now he's talking about Greenland. Does that all just take a backseat too? Is this all just more show, more display? He's certainly got everybody's minds off of Epstein.
SPEAKER_02:I mean, I I do think that he's gonna try to push uh you know on these other issues as much as he can. Those are gonna be way more difficult, though, actually. Uh so I don't know exactly how how he's gonna do that. That's of course a big question. Regarding, though, the trial, it's there's an interesting question about that because you're not allowed to do that, are you?
SPEAKER_01:There can't be a trial of a foreign head of state in a different country.
SPEAKER_02:According to international law, no, because heads of state have immunity. But according to US law, US la international law doesn't apply to US, uh to US law. So in that sense, yes, it can move ahead. And that's you know, so that's uh of course I mean they're going to try to fight it. I mean, the Maduro's defense lawyers are going to try to claim immunity. I I've seen them talk about it already, but uh it probably won't stick because the U.S. court system always defers to U.S. law. It's it always ignores international law. Uh international law is basically non-existent as far as US law is concerned. So in that sense, it will probably move forward. Now the other big question is what kind of evidence do they have? I mean, I'm not sure. Yeah, and that's uh and I'm convinced that anyway that Maduro is innocent of these charges.
SPEAKER_01:But uh the problem is that, and this is something that I've only seen Newsweek report on so far, is that um in the Well that's because they were always out in front with the most pers you know most intelligent and perceptive reporting. Why is that a surprise? Uh go ahead. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
SPEAKER_02:But um in July of um 2025, there was a sentence against uh Hugo Carvajal, who was the uh head of uh Secret Service of Venezuela. And uh he had you know falling out with uh Maduro, eventually was caught on Interpol Red Alert or whatever, extradited to the United States, where he had been charged with drug trafficking charges. Now, I don't know what the charges against him looked like, but I assume that somebody who's you know so involved in all these kind of secret uh shenanigans and so on would probably be involved in some way or another. So there had enough to make it stick. And but the thing is, so the sentence came, uh sorry, not the sentence, the verdict came down in July. The judge uh was asked to hold off on the verdict, uh, sorry, on the sentencing. Uh, and now there's a lot of speculation that the reason for that was in order to reduce the sentence if he trestifies against Maduro. And so, of course, he could make up anything against Maduro in order to uh get off of his uh get out of his um prison sentence. And that could be very damning for Maduro. Now, I can't imagine that he's gonna have anything concrete, but it might be good enough for uh to convict uh Maduro. And so that's the real kind of sticker for a sticking point for any real advance or movement on freeing Maduro.
SPEAKER_01:Have you been in touch with other folks inside Venezuela? You mentioned at the outset that uh you know most of the population was lining up behind the government and Maduro. What makes you feel that? I mean, it's uh you of course there's no coverage here that gives you that impression. So what are you in touch with people?
SPEAKER_02:I mean, yeah, I mean well, this is just based on uh kind of the the uh and when I'm talking about that, I mean I'm talking about of course also including the government, the people who already support the government. In other words, it's had there's no fragmenting or anything, uh as far as I can tell. But um you know, this that's purely speculation, and there haven't been really any real opinion polls or anything since then to really uh you know show this. So yeah, there were lots of pretty massive protests in Venezuela in support of uh releasing Maduro and returning Maduro to Venezuela. Uh so that's the only reason I have to say something like that, but I have no action.
SPEAKER_01:But there have been large protests? Yes. Yeah, I haven't seen, you know, I haven't been aware of it. Uh so that's good. Dulcie Rodriguez, she seems to be pretty adamant. I mean, she's getting quoted in major, you know, US venues as being pretty aggressive about we're not gonna put up with this. Is that all is that all for Trump? Or is it for Venezuelan population, or is it so she can look at herself in the mirror in the morning? I mean, what's going on there?
SPEAKER_02:She has to say that, I think. I mean, and I I'm pretty sure she believes that too. I mean, like I said, the concessions that she might end up having to make won't be such a big deal that she can still say, you know, that we didn't sell out the country. Now, I'm not sure exactly at this point what even what that the only thing that I can imagine that would mean, selling out, I mean, would be to actually resign and to hand it over to the opposition. So in other words, her statements are essentially a signal that they're not going to turn over the government to the opposition. Um, but pretty much everything else is up for negotiation, I think. And Maduro has said that himself, actually, uh, before he was overthrown. And uh so I don't have any reason to believe why Dessi Rodriguez wouldn't follow that same kind of position in terms of conceding on these issues that we already talked about.
SPEAKER_01:Back to the oil now. You listen to, or I listen to, actually, I haven't listened to that much, but I listen to and hear accounts, and it sounds like, you know, Trump is saying, well, it's our oil, and we're now going to go in and take it, and we're going to uh profit off it, and it'll be terrific. The output was low, and now we get to, or it had dropped dramatically, um, and now we get to a kind of a sticky, difficult situation for well-meaning leftists. What's the agenda? Is the agenda really to expand oil production in Venezuela mightily? And is it is it is the negotiated settlement that that wealth winds up in the United States, or is it that it winds up half and half, or is it that it winds up in Venezuela? What does it mean for the world if the largest underground presence of oil all of a sudden starts being produced at a huge scale? I don't understand this kind of thing, but maybe you do. I mean, what uh what do you see as the implications of that?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I mean, as somebody who's you know very worried about uh you know climate change and global warming, uh, I think uh, you know, increasing oil production would be definitely a bad thing. The good news for the ecologists, I would say, is that uh Venezuelan oil is is difficult to produce, it's expensive to produce. And the price, as I mentioned earlier, the price of oil is already fairly low. And so that makes it uh not very profitable to uh produce Venezuelan oil at this time. Now it's always profitable to produce oil, but uh of course you also have to take into account that uh the more oil you produce, the lower the price will be. And so it becomes even less profitable. So so in a way, uh, and it's a considerable investment, isn't it?
SPEAKER_01:I mean, that is you know, the U.S. firms would have to seriously devote themselves to long-term investment too.
SPEAKER_02:It takes a long time to uh to drive up production. And so um so it seems unlikely to me. It's not it's not even going to pay off. So let's say you produce a million more barrels per day, which would be almost a doubling of the current rate. You know, if the price goes down even more because of that, then you won't have gained anything. Uh so so I think in that sense, uh you know, they might pr try to increase it uh slightly, but again, that's why I'm saying this whole oil issue in a certain way is non Is a non-issue. It's just something that Trump loves to talk about, and he thinks he's winning the favor of the oil industry or something like that. And he's winning the favor of the American people because prices will be lower. He's that's his big theory, right? That energy prices drive uh all other prices. There's some limited truth to that, but it's not the only thing. Um so uh again, it's all about perception, I think, uh, for Trump in that sense. So yeah, I don't I don't think that's gonna really uh do too much. I mean, it's not gonna change too much. For Venezuela, though, of course, the big problem has been are the sanctions, uh, in the sense that uh even though Venezuela is exporting close to, I don't know what the numbers are right now, but I think it's close to a million dollars uh barrels per day, um the sanctions are uh a huge damper on the profits that money. In other words, Venezuela could make a lot more money, even if it produces the same amount, but if the sanctions weren't in place, because right now it is you know spending a lot of money on going through uh the spot market and through various other kinds of uh mechanisms to evade the sanctions that are increasing, uh reducing the revenues for the Venezuelan state. And so that is you know a huge difference for Venezuela. Um but it won't make a big difference, of course, for uh for transnational oil companies so much, except, of course, you know, if they manage to increase invest here and there, and then yeah, they'll make a little bit more money. But it won't be that's such a big deal for them, I think.
SPEAKER_01:It looks seeing it through your eyes like a show.
SPEAKER_02:Um I think it largely is, actually. I I know that sounds uh is not um going to be very popular for many people. I mean of course the the uh the the the part that's not a show, let me focus on that for a little bit, which is uh which I think is this deliberate effort to destroy the Venezuelan economy in order to prevent a real alternative to liberal capitalism or any capitalism. And that I think that part is not for show. Um and this is actually the the irony of, or not irony, but it's one of the big things that you know, where Trump and also Biden and Obama can point to success in destroying the Venezuelan economy through the sanctions and saying, ha, this proves that anti-capitalism does not work.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, right.
SPEAKER_02:So they've been so uh uh adamant in this position. I mean, it's just amazing. I I keep hearing Trump talk about how Maduro destroyed the Venezuelan economy and all that. And all the news media, literally every single mainstream news media outlet I've seen, repeats it ad nauseum without a single mention of any of the sanctions, when actually you could uh easily prove that uh you know, even if you say that Maduro made some mistakes economically speaking, I would say at least 75% of the economic suffering that Venezuela is going through, that is well, over half of uh it is due to the sanctions and not due to uh the government's mistakes, which I think there have been, uh but uh but it's nothing in comparison to uh how brutal the sanctions have been. And then on top of it all, now of course is the whole uh effort to institute a blockade. Um and that's going to make to make the situation even worse. And again, it's just more proof that socialism or whatever, an alternative doesn't work.
SPEAKER_01:Let's go back to the trial for a second. Uh he could have been in Miami, but he chose New York. Or somebody chose New York, New York City. Do you think that's an accident, or that's him saying, Okay, Mom Donnie, let's see you do something about this. Yeah, you're trying to provoke a contest in New York.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I I have no idea how these things get decided. I mean, I really I was puzzling about that as well, and it's really mysterious. Um I I think it's it may be. Uh on the other hand, it might just be that this is the court that is the most experienced in dealing with these kinds of issues, because that's after all, where a whole bunch of these high-profile cases have been tried. So I just don't know.
SPEAKER_01:Don't you think that there will be demonstrations in New York City near the courthouse and around the courthouse?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I am sure, and I hope so. Um but I don't think that's going to necessarily influence uh the outcome.
SPEAKER_01:No, but it might influence relationship, let's call it, between New York and the federal government.
SPEAKER_02:Uh yeah, I guess. Uh I mean I doubt that Mamdani will intervene. And so then, yeah, of course, that Trump might say, oh, we've got to send that.
SPEAKER_01:But he'll pay a price for not for not protecting the demonstrators. Yeah. If he doesn't. Right. So that you know reduces his base, I guess you could say. I don't know.
SPEAKER_02:I mean uh that would be an awful lot of strategic foreth thought that's the thing.
SPEAKER_01:I may be uh uh giving them more credit than is warranted. Uh I don't know. Hey, let me ask you about something else, which I bet you didn't anticipate, but your bio indicates that you have a forthcoming book. And I've known about, you know, that you're working on this book for quite a while. Why don't we give a little advanced preview to the uh audience about a book that they'll be able to get when? Just a few months, right? Like in April or something.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. Um, yeah. So it's called Developing Consciousness for the Post-Capitalist Commons. And it's relevant to Venezuela because it kind of came out of my work on Venezuela, where towards the end of my book on changing Venezuela by taking power, I kind of analyzed what some of the obstacles uh to the Bolivarian revolution moving forward are, especially, you know, if they continue to, especially in that time Chavez was still alive, and when I finished it, and uh if if Chavez had you know uh had been able to continue pushing for um anti-capitalist or socialist changes, what would be the main obstacles to that? And of course the the big one, which we've all seen now, is you know, US imperialism. There's no doubt about that. And so I didn't feel like um feel much need to really analyze that because it's been analyzed to death. Uh but where I see the left and progressives generally not facing uh focusing so much is on the question of consciousness. There's uh a real, and this is something that actually Chavez thought about himself quite a bit. He kept talking about the need to uh to change consciousness, that uh he uh he once gave the analogy something like, uh, yeah, we've succeeded in uh in uh demolishing the structures of capitalism. I should I'm mangling the quote, but it was something like, but uh but the uh uh but the wind that kept them, this these structures going is still blowing, or something like that, he said. But the point was that uh that the consciousness still hasn't changed. And so the the lack of uh change in consciousness is destroying some of the new institutions from the inside. So, in other words, you know, Chavez tried to set up uh the communes and cooperatives and things like that, and um people would uh recreate uh hierarchical structures within uh these institutions and also the government, even though Chavez was, I think, uh committed to uh building what he called a communal state, um uh even his you know his own ministers would often intervene and interfere in uh these communal structures and and uh basically uh uh not allow them to flourish as much as I think they otherwise would have. And so then the big question is, well, what's going on and how can we deal with this consciousness question? And so I looked at um theories of psychological development, really, and I think that's kind of where the answer lies. Uh now people would uh, of course, there's many critics of that and so on, and but uh the idea being that you know there's there's different forms of consciousness, some of which favor uh author more authoritarian structures, then there's some forms of consciousness that form uh that favor more kind of capitalist structures that might be also combining with authoritarian, but not necessarily. I mean, there's like libertarian capitalism and so on. Uh but uh but then there's also uh uh another form of consciousness, which uh uh uh which I would uh which some call post-conventional, uh, which is uh basically one that recognizes the need for uh uh uh equality and equal participation on all levels, uh, and tries to find ways to do that, to organize that. Uh and that's basically, and that's why uh I get into the whole topic of the commons, even though the communes are kind of simple. I mean, these are all kind of interchangeable or related concepts or in terms of you know the cooperatives, commons, and communes. But uh there's there's slight differences in what's meant by them. But I I use the the concept of the commons um because it kind of harkens back to also the ecological idea of you know the commons and the need to develop uh com to to democratically develop rules for how we export natural resources, the cooperatives being also another form of um of commons, but centered around labor and uh sharing labor in the production process and organizing it in a shared way. And then the kind of the third kind, which I actually call a post-capitalist commons, is um is uh more like the the cultural commons or creative commons, uh which uh uh which operates on slightly different principles because you can reproduce you know uh culture infinitely without any uh major expenditure. And but it also needs certain rules and certain governing principles that need to be and those need to be democratically developed. Uh I think sometimes Wikipedia might be in that direction. The Creative Commons licensing, I think, is also something that goes in that direction. But we could uh generalize those principles underlying that for so many other spheres. So, anyways, but the point is that that uh uh we need a new form of consciousness in order to do that, one that actively recognizes these different types of consciousness and uh tries to promote a kind that would be uh more conducive to these new uh post-capitalist structures or institutions.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell Does the book also talk, not that it has to, but does it also talk about, okay, we have a conception, we have a view of what kind of consciousness would be consistent with a better post-capitalist existence? Does it talk about how one or how activities or how choices impact the likelihood of that consciousness emerging? In other words, are there implications of what your book looks into for what movements do, for how they're organized, and what kinds of policies and steps they should take?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, unfortunately, it doesn't go into much depth on that issue, on that question, other than to call attention to that question. In other words, for people to be reflecting on well, what kind of consciousness are we developing here as we uh move forward uh with these new structures? And so this affects everything, you know, from uh you know how we do meetings to how do we um uh see ourselves and our role in uh these institutions and organizations. Uh and of course it this touches, I think, on some of your work as well, you know, the question of you know, uh is somebody going to uh dominate informally um or are we going to ensure some kind of uh structure that we all recognize that needs to uh where we where we need to make sure that everybody's empowered equally in order to maintain uh equality in the organization or the institution. Um but uh the uh what I focus on a lot more uh uh is uh kind of looking at well, what might be the trend that exists in society that might uh bring about this new type of consciousness. And uh here I kind of point out to uh the uh kind of the crisis that we're facing in terms of neoliberalism, having individuated everyone, isolated people to such an extreme extent that in the end that could flip into something positive in the sense that we uh we become so isolated and individual that the only way we end up relating to each other in the end, or that we we might in a positive way relate to each other is on the basis of what we have in common rather than on the basis of what uh separates or divides us. Uh uh so the idea being that we become so individualized to such an extreme that the only thing we can fall back on is actually our common humanity, and that creates a radical equality, in a sense, uh among everyone and undermines, I think, all the massive inequality that we currently have in society.
SPEAKER_01:Well, I hope that's true, and we move that way. Do you think there are gonna be ramifications going back to the current events? Do you think there's gonna be ramifications of what's been done throughout the rest of Latin America or South America? Do you think that uh this is gonna have a longer-term effect? There are, you know, Don, what is it, Monroe? Donro Doctrine, uh, you know, all that stuff. Is this just noise?
SPEAKER_02:Or I think it's actually incredibly um apropos that uh that Trump is calling his doctrine the Donro Doctrine because uh, you know, this is uh kind of reminiscent of Mafia dons. Um that's what uh it really is, you know. Um so this whole idea of spheres of influence and and basically one having one boss rule their um you know territory, a mafia principle, essentially. And um I'm sure that Trump will continue in that direction because he stated that. And what it means, of course, is completely uh obliterating uh international law. I mean, uh international law has already been kind of irrelevant for a while, but I think Trump essentially puts the last nail in that in the coffin of international law now. Uh anything goes, essentially, at this point. And so we've entered a hugely dangerous era. And um the governments of Latin America are recognizing that, at least the progressive ones, the the right-wing ones, you know, they they just want to join in. They want their share of the pie. But I think the progressive governments recognize that and are trying to fight it, but uh there's not too unfortunately not too much they can do, I think, as long as you know there's no unity across Latin America. And there certainly isn't at the moment. So I'm liber I don't know exactly what the alternative or what they can do, really. That has me really worried. And uh and what scares me even more is that Europe seems to be falling in line. Even though they criticized uh Trump's undermining of international law during the UN Security Council meeting, uh the criticism was extremely uh weak. If you could if you compared the statements that came from the European European ambassadors versus the ones from the Latin American ones, the progressive Latin American ones, the Latin American ones were devastating. They really gave very strong statements, but the European ones, they were really wishy-washy and uh I saw the same thing.
SPEAKER_01:I had the same even to the extent that it's critical, it's actually not, because it sort of says, well, going forward, you should pay attention to international law, and ignores what just happened, which is you know, it just says, well, we we don't really give a damn. I would have thought it would have been a little bit more absurd. Denmark is the exception, I guess, huh? Because they're worried about Greenland, whatever that means. I don't know.
SPEAKER_02:No, it's uh it's uh it's and so it's really scary. I mean, I I don't know what that uh that's gonna lead to. Basically, and of course, you know, Putin and uh and China are you know, even though they made fairly strong defenses of international law in their practice, um they don't uh care about that. I don't know about China, to be honest, but Russia certainly doesn't.
SPEAKER_01:Aaron Powell And that's what uh some of the criticism inside the US takes the form, oh, what will Putin do now and how will we criticize it? Or what right? That's sort of like all the way back to the Vietnam War. The critics would be critics of the carrying out of it, the the mechanics of it, uh, you know, but not the ethics of it, not the legality of it. Um that's sort of repeating itself now, or so it seems anyway. All right. Well, um, is there anything uh that you'd like to bring up and talk about uh before we bring it to an end?
SPEAKER_02:Well, I mean, it's it's I mean, I re I really think that you know progressives you know need to think about well what, you know, aside from these individual demands about the situation in Venezuela, really need to think about what kind of international uh structure relations should we be fighting for, because this is really, I think, kind of the beginning of of an extremely, extremely dangerous era that we're entering, and we're not talking about it enough. I think, you know, as another friend of mine is putting out now this uh a major documentary on uh the possibility of nuclear war, we just made another huge step in that direction, I think. And it's something that we don't think about enough. Um it's just becoming more and more.
SPEAKER_01:It's interesting uh that you say that. The I think the left, the more left it is, the less it's it's discussed at some level. Uh just recently, I think it I think it was Krogman, you know, the economist, but it might have been right. W one of them in response said how they couldn't sleep the prior night to when they were giving this speech or whatever it was. I might have the people mixed up, but not the content. And they said it's because I felt like there was no lid on the possibility of Trump dropping a nuclear weapon someplace. That uh, you know, for the first time, these are people, social democrats, who were highly critical, but never really afraid. And now this person was voicing real fear, which is a little bit like what you were just saying, that you know, something seems to have changed or potentially changed, which is certainly a sobering thought.
SPEAKER_02:I mean, it doesn't surprise me in a way that that this would come up uh among them or kind of center-left uh folks, uh, because you know, after all, they were, so to speak, the architects of the international order. But uh and the and the left in that sense, or the more uh you know radical left, hasn't uh really paid too much attention to those questions, I think. I mean, we use it when when we find that international law has been violated, but we don't give too much thought to, well, how could things be done differently or better? Uh, and what should we be fighting for now?
SPEAKER_01:I suppose in a way that mirrors the far left not being very nervous about Trump uh during the elections. Uh well, it's all terrible, so who cares if if Trump wins? Maybe it's it's a bit like that. All right. Well, I'm not sure whether people can see what I see. I see this beautiful landscape behind you, except that it's a picture.
SPEAKER_02:It's actually the background of where I used to live uh in Colombia.
SPEAKER_01:In Colombia. And now you're on the move. Where are you going to wind up?
SPEAKER_02:I don't know yet. Uh we'll see.
SPEAKER_01:All right. Well, I hope it is a good place for you, wherever it turns out to be. Thanks for coming on, Greg. And uh, I guess that said, this is Mike Albert signing off for Revolution Z. Until next time.