[Ramón Grosfoguel is a Puertorican intellectual recognized for his work on the decolonization of knowledge and power. In this exclusive interview, Grosfoguel talks about the living links between the colonial and the neocolonial systems, the problematic legacy of the colonial past in Venezuela’s present, and US imperialism’s neocolonialism in relation to Venezuela.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Cira Pascual Marquina: As a country besieged by imperialism, one of the pending tasks in Venezuela is to understand what you call the “coloniality of power.” What is the coloniality of power and its relationship with Eurocentrism?

Ramón Grosfoguel: The European colonial project is about economic expansion, but it also has a civilizatory dimension. At one point, when the colonial epicenter was Europe, when it was expanding at a world scale, the colonialists not only extracted wealth from the colonies, but they also destroyed the civilizations they encountered and imposed their own. In other words, when we talk about colonial powers, we are talking about the multiple power structures that were put in place during European colonial expansion.

How did they do it? They imposed Christendom as a cosmology and as a religion by force. Racial domination was also applied wherever they went, and they brought structures of political authority through their colonial administration. This included top-down hierarchies, military domination, and Christian patriarchy.

The colonialists enforced the international division of labor that favors the center and divides the periphery. They did all this violently, imposing various forms of forced labor in the periphery, and exercising direct control over the market with economic, political, and military mechanisms.

In my work, I identify sixteen hierarchies of power that were exported by European colonialists. Wherever they arrived, Europeans brought colonial structures of domination that had an important epistemological component. And precisely that’s where Eurocentrism comes into the picture.

The colonial project imposed its own structures of knowledge that were centered in Europe and were undeniably Eurocentric.

CPM: What is the difference between being centered in Europe and Eurocentric?

RG: All civilizations have their epistemic center in their local territories. For example, Chinese civilization has China as its center while Aztec civilization was Aztec-centric. The difference is that the European colonialist project considered that the knowledge produced in Europe was superior to the knowledge of the people – and civilizations – that they were colonizing.

In short, Eurocentrism is the belief that European knowledges are superior to other knowledges. That’s why, when I use the term “Eurocentrism,” I’m not talking about the fact that Europeans had (and have) a knowledge that is centered in Europe, but about the epistemic hierarchy that they establish. That’s what we call epistemic racism, it is linked to the coloniality of power, and it was exported around the world.

In short, European colonial expansion was not just about economic expansion and the formation of capitalism, but it was also a civilizational expansion. That’s why I argue that capitalism is the economic system of a civilization that we call modern and colonial.

CPM: You come from Puerto Rico, which is still a colony, but colonies are not at the center of neocolonial domination nowadays. Instead, imperialism – which controls vast regions of the world but has few formal colonies – is the current expression of the coloniality of power. Can you talk about this?

RG: In the periphery, we went from colonial administrations to neocolonial ones. The old colonial administrations were defeated through independence wars, but this doesn’t mean that the coloniality of power disappeared. What it really means is that the imperialists developed new forms of colonialism. Kwame Nkrumah coined the term “neocolonial” to refer to the current configuration.

In the current configuration, the empires dominate the periphery. The former colonies seem to be independent but in reality, they are still dominated economically, politically, and epistemologically… and sometimes militarily! The colonial powers also left behind state structures that don’t leave space to maneuver.

When a country has a neocolonial administration with neocolonial elites running its state, and the empire exercises pressure and imposes constraints, real independence is practically impossible. It is a transition where the continuities are more potent than the discontinuities.

The day after the independence of a colony, that territory is still a colony – or not sovereign – because it is dependent: it is still in the periphery of the international division of labor, and it exports the same goods to the same metropolitan centers. The international division of labor in place 300 years ago is still here today.

And that’s what we call neocolonialism or imperialism.

CPM: How did colonialism morph into neocolonialism so seamlessly?

RG: After independence, when colonial regimes were defeated, the imperial system continued operating the same way, but it developed new methods of domination. The first approach was to control the elites in the newly independent states. This generally worked, but if the new elites were anti-imperialist, they would be overthrown through coups, wars spurred by the CIA, or outright invasions.

Second, the metropolitan centers implanted Westernized universities in the periphery to colonize minds and promote neocolonial policies. Universities and other mechanisms for cultural domination are key to the neocolonial project.

Then, there is the implementation of economic sanctions. If a country such as Cuba or Venezuela goes off the path, a blockade will descend upon its people. And mind you, the mechanism of sanctions goes way back. With the Haitian Revolution, a brutal blockade was applied to the island after its independence.

As you can see, the empire deploys hybrid warfare against the periphery to keep it in line. It can take the shape of a fake news campaign, an electrical blackout, a coup, or an invasion… All options are on the table all the time.

CPM: Let’s look at the Venezuelan case. How did the neocolonial system take shape after independence?

RG: The first independence of Latin America was not carried to completion, and left us with structures of domination such as racism, Christian patriarchy, and the church, but also capitalism, its devastating logic, and its international division of labor.

If we look at Venezuela, the neocolonial system assigned a role to the nation: exporting one commodity, oil. Of course, the Bolivarian Revolution has tried to break away from oil dependency and diversify its economy, and it also tries to break with the neocolonial structures of domination through its communal economy…

However, Venezuela is still highly dependent on oil exports, while racism, Christian patriarchy, and capitalism are still there. Also, the neocolonial structure of power inherited from the Fourth Republic [1958-1998] is still around.

But the Bolivarian Revolution has many things to teach us. Foremost among them is Chávez’s project to decolonize political authority. He realized that to interrupt the existing politics of domination, we need to occupy the existing institutions while promoting a new form of political authority: communal power.

By combining the dismantling of the old institutions with the promotion of new communal power, Chávez was breaking with the old Eurocentric dilemma of the left: anti-state anarchism versus statism.

The fact is that, from the point of view of Latin America, that’s a nonsensical debate. Chávez said:

Hey, it’s both at the same time! We need to occupy the state in order to interrupt the politics of domination, but we won’t be able to build a new society from the state, so we need to build a communal state outside of the existing one.

Why is this necessary and decolonial? Because the inherited state is corrupt, operates through domination, pits people against people, and is organized in such a way that the pueblo cannot decide. That’s why Chávez said Commune or Nothing! We need to build a communal state parallel to the existing state in order to replace it.

In his reflections, Chávez was creatively breaking away from the neocolonial episteme. That’s why I always say that Chávez was a decolonial thinker: he proposed a form of political authority that would break away from the Eurocentric dilemma of statism versus anti-state anarchism. That’s a 200-year-old European debate. Chávez said: Enough is enough, we need to do the two things at the same time!

Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution have a lot to offer to critical decolonial thought, but unfortunately, few people know of it outside Venezuela.

CPM: Perhaps the fact that Venezuela offers a decolonial alternative is what makes it a target for US imperialism. Would you agree?

RG: Over the years, the Bolivarian Revolution has endured all sorts of attacks: from the 2002 coup to violent guarimbas; from the sabotage of the economy to Guaidó’s 2019 coup attempt; from the sanctions to the attempted paramilitary invasion from Colombia in 2020 financed by the empire. The story goes on and on. Why? Precisely because Venezuela is breaking away from the neocolonial project and because it represents an anti-imperialist alternative to the structures of domination in place around the world.

However, despite all the support that the neocolonial elites get from imperialism, they have been defeated in elections time and again over the last 20 years. Why? Because people understand the decolonial project and are committed to their country’s sovereignty.

It is true that the neocolonial phase hasn’t been fully overcome. Racism is still there. Capitalist exploitation is still there. The subordination to the international division of labor is still there. Christian patriarchy is still there. However, through its control of oil production, the Bolivarian state has been able to distribute the rent in the form of social services for the people.

Over the past few years, the sabotage of the economy with the consent of the local, neocolonial elites has intensified. As a consequence, people have suffered hyperinflation and scarcity of food and medicines. The hope of the imperialists is that the people will channel their discontent against the government. However, that hasn’t happened. Why? Because of the pueblo’s consciousness.

Venezuela had a popular pedagogue in Hugo Chávez Frias. Every Sunday, in his Aló Presidente broadcast, he would take three to four hours to discuss the problems of the revolution and this raised the consciousness of the people. That’s why, when you talk to Venezuelans now, they will tell you that it is US imperialism and not the Venezuelan government that is generating hyperinflation. They know that Venezuela is enduring a large-scale sabotage.

They also know that the US wants Venezuela’s resources. After all, the country has the largest oil reserves in the world, as well as enormous gold and rare mineral reserves, which are important for the US military-industrial complex.

People know all this. Venezuelans are conscious and they won’t submit to the United States!

– Part II –

CPM: You concluded part one of this interview by reflecting on the failed imperialist attempts to overthrow the Bolivarian government. Nonetheless, it is no secret that the sanctions have led to a liberalization of the Venezuelan economy. Right now, there are three currents within the Bolivarian Process: there is a tendency in favor of liberalizing the economy (some call it neoliberal); there is another that promotes the Chinese model; and there is a third that promotes the communal path to socialism. Can you talk about these three tendencies and their prospects?

RG: The neocolonial elites – which are essentially fascist – want to repress the people and destroy the Bolivarian Revolution. They want to go back to the Fourth Republic, and they’re committed to neoliberalism.

However, within the ranks of the revolution, there are, as you mentioned, three positions or currents. None of them is hegemonic, so there is a struggle inside the process.

There is one sector that wants to subordinate the Bolivarian Revolution to neoliberal policies in the vain hope of appeasing US imperialism. In other words, they aim to maintain control over the state, but the economic policies that they promote are the empire’s. This is a reactionary response to the attack, and it’s also naive. The imperialists are overtly opposed to the revolution, and if you make economic concessions to them, they aren’t going to give in but just the opposite. To illustrate this, let’s look at Gaddafi in Libya. He thought that by making concessions and turning some oil wells over to Western corporations, the siege would end. But what happened to Libya? An outright invasion destroyed the country.

Imperialism isn’t just an economic system; it’s also a geopolitical civilizational system. The imperialists aren’t about to give up just because a country like Libya (or Venezuela for that matter) makes economic concessions to their interests. The imperialist elites want total control: it’s not enough for them if the Bolivarian elites turn neoliberal and are willing to liberalize the oil market. If they can, they will go all the way and destroy everything touched by the Bolivarian Revolution. This includes the Bolivarian elites who are willing to make concessions at the level of the economy in order to survive.

But let’s go back to Gaddafi to see why economic concessions don’t work: he thought that opening up would bring an end to imperialist aggressions, but the empire is never happy with a leadership that is not directly under its command. This means that you are not going to appease imperialism by giving up oil fields, implementing neoliberal policies, and opening up for investments. They’re going to go all the way to destroy you no matter what.

Then there is another consideration about the path of economic liberalization: it represents everything that the Bolivarian Revolution went against since its early days. The revolution emerged as a force opposed to neoliberal policies and in favor of sovereignty, including sovereignty over oil resources. If you give that up, what is left of the Bolivarian Revolution? Giving up those things would be a major betrayal. That’s why I would say that the tendency that promotes economic liberalization is counter-revolutionary.

Then you have the people who believe in the Chinese model. But what, really, is the Chinese model? China has a one-party system with an authoritarian state and a capitalist market economy. In fact, China today is the result of a coup that happened one month after Mao’s death in 1976. The coup was followed by a massive purge and “modernizing” reforms that opened the country to Western capitalist investment on a massive scale. What did they offer to the investors? Cheap labor and tax-free incentives.

China has been through a full transition and is now a capitalist superpower in the world economy. In fact, it has economically displaced the US and other European imperialist powers. However, China does have a different kind of capitalism which is not neoliberal and not imperialist, and that’s why they are allies in the struggle against US imperialism. China is a diplomatic and military ally, and that is very important.

CPM: But, once again, going back to the Bolivarian Revolution, what is the right path? Is a restoration like China’s desirable from a Left perspective? Whatmore, is the Chinese model viable in Venezuela?

RG: The Chinese model isn’t applicable to Venezuela. I’ll tell you why. The viability of their model comes from a very particular geopolitical context that dates back to the 1970s, when China and the US came together in an alliance against the Soviet Union. That’s how the transfer of technology and capital resources from the US to China began to happen. China and the US were geopolitical allies, so the West was extremely happy to invest massively in China.

Now, going back to Venezuela, even if new laws favoring foreign investments are promoted by the National Assembly, we are not going to see the China situation repeated there. Venezuela cannot become a little China.

CPM: Not only are the geopolitical conditions different when one compares China in the 1970s with Venezuela now, but Venezuela is under a brutal regime of sanctions that keeps potential investors – whether US investors or not – from investing in the country.

RG: That’s right. Corporations are not going to invest in Venezuela while the risk of being sanctioned by the US is still there. That’s why even Chinese and Russian companies have had second thoughts about investing in the Caribbean nation.

At the end of the day, the debate about whether the Chinese model is good or not is irrelevant. The debate should be whether the application of the Chinese model is viable for Venezuela, and the truth is that it is geopolitically impossible to pursue it. No important corporation is going to invest in Venezuela the way they did in China some fifty years ago. China was an ally but Venezuela is an enemy.

That’s why I argue that the only alternative that is realistic for the revolution is to move beyond capitalism and into a communal economy. Chávez put the commune on the horizon precisely because he understood that it is the only viable model for Venezuela.

Am I saying this because I think the communal model offers a better life for the future? No, I’m actually talking in much more pragmatic terms. It’s only the communal economy that can give Venezuela sovereignty over its food, and that will be fundamental if there is an imperialist escalation. How is Venezuela going to survive if there is direct US aggression in military terms? Will the country survive by importing and exporting out of ports that will be literally blockaded? No, Venezuela’s only chance to survive would be through local production and communal power.

If you think about the Vietnamese Revolution, it resisted the invasion because it had communal production. They defeated the US because they were self-reliant in productive terms. That’s why I say that the commune is a strategic model in a geopolitical sense: it’s the only viable alternative for the security of the country.

For that reason, in addition to the commune being the utopian horizon of the Bolivarian Revolution, it also represents the possibility of survival in the face of an imperialist escalation in the very near future.

CPM: We agree that the commune is the solution, but how can it become the hegemonic model for the Bolivarian Process?

RG: I think there has to be a debate about strategy within the Bolivarian Revolution. In fact, it’s urgent to discuss the issue of security! In the next few years, the situation of US imperialism is going to further decay, and its last redoubt will be Latin America, the continent that they consider to be “their backyard.”

US imperialists lost in the Middle East and Africa and the whole of Asia to China. They recovered the European market with their fabricated war in Ukraine and the sanctions on Russia. But now that they have recovered Europe, what next? They are coming back to Latin America. They are being challenged by China in terms of trade in the region, and they want to regain control.

Let’s look at Chile. Chile has been a neocolony of the US since the CIA orchestrated the coup against Salvador Allende. However, commercially, Chile’s number one partner is China and not the US. So, even in a country where they practically control the political ecosystem, they are losing ground in economic terms.

That’s why regaining control of the region is a necessity for them. That’s also why the aggression against Venezuela is not going to stop. Honestly, I think it’s going to escalate, because the empire’s future is on the line and it depends on Latin America. If they lose the continent, the US empire is over, so they are going to fight for it until their last drop of blood.

Moreover, their interest in Venezuela is multilayered, because they also want its resources. Now, as the imperialist aggression escalates, the only way to resist will be the communal economy.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to survival. Just like the question is not so much whether we like the Chinese model or not, but whether it is viable, the same goes for the communal model. In that case, the question is if it can offer us a lifeline when faced with a US escalation. Clearly, the communal economy is the only lifeline for the revolution and for the people of Venezuela.

For the Bolivarian Revolution to survive the imperialist aggression over the next five or ten years, it must develop and consolidate the communal economy and communal power. Nothing else can hold out against an all-out US aggression. It’s a matter of life or death for the Bolivarian Revolution: either you communalize the economy and communalize power, or nothing will be left.

That’s why Chávez’s “Commune or Nothing!” slogan is more important than ever. In that phrase, “nothing” refers to being a new US colony. Since there is a consensus against this option, then the commune is the path. So, as you see, the debate shouldn’t center on whether we like the communal model or not, but around the very issue of life and survival. When everyone understands this, the communal model will become hegemonic.

(Cira Pascual Marquina is Political Science Professor at the Universidad de Bolivariana de Venezuela in Caracas and is staff writer for Venezuelanalysis.com. Courtesy: Venezuelanalysis, an independent website produced by individuals who are dedicated to disseminating news and analysis about the current political situation in Venezuela.)