January 11, 2026
Array

The Gangster Phase of Imperialism

Prabhat Patnaik

WHEN the Soviet Union collapsed, liberal bourgeois writers had proclaimed the arrival of an era marked by the universal triumph of democracy and stability; they had considered the socialist challenge unnecessary and counterproductive, and believed that capitalism which had already given political independence to its colonies, and introduced universal adult franchise and welfare state measures at its core, would, in the absence of this challenge, secure for mankind peace, economic security and individual freedom. Several Left writers, on the other hand, had seen decolonization, and the introduction of universal adult franchise and welfare state measures, as concessions wrung out of capitalism at a time when it faced an existential threat because of the socialist challenge, and had anticipated that the abatement of this challenge would make the system assume its usual predatory character and roll back these concessions; they have been proved right, and imperialism, with which alone we shall be concerned here, has shown its blatantly aggressive nature, exhibiting what can only be called a “gangster phase”.

To abduct, as US imperialism has done, a duly elected President of another country, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, and his wife, from their residence through a military operation, and bring them to the US in handcuffs to face trial on trumped up charges for which no credible evidence has ever been provided, and to run their country directly as a US colony until a suitable puppet government has been put in place, is an act of incredible audacity which violates all legal and moral norms of international behaviour and typifies this “gangster phase” of imperialism.

This however constitutes the latest act of the gangster phase of imperialism. The forcible removal of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and his execution, again on totally false charges, the brutal killing of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, the occupation of Syria, the genocide perpetrated on the Palestinian people whose only “fault” lies in their desire not to be evicted from their homes by an imperialist-backed settler colonial project, the taking over of Gaza as a US colony to be ruled by a “Viceroy” selected by Donald Trump and to be converted into a piece of prime real estate, are all episodes in the unfolding of the gangster phase of imperialism.

Liberal opinion, again, holds Donald Trump as a maverick responsible for behaving like a gangster and puts the entire onus of recent predatory acts on him alone. But most of the episodes mentioned above predate Donald Trump’s ascendancy to power; the difference between Trump and earlier US Presidents lies only in the fact that the others had camouflaged their gangster acts under a patina of “civilized” verbiage, while Trump makes no bones about his administration’s intentions. Besides, every one of the episodes mentioned above, including even the genocide directed against the Palestinians, has the full support of other imperialist countries who never cease to advertise their so-called “liberal” principles. Even the abduction of Nicolas Maduro, while it has drawn condemnation from all over the world except a few in the global south wishing to curry favour with Trump (among whom alas India is included), has enjoyed the active or tacit backing of Germany, France and Britain.

An argument is being put forward, in particular by the European allies of the US, to the effect that Nicolas Maduro was an authoritarian ruler, so that no tears need be shed over his removal. The utter absurdity of this argument is palpable. International law does not allow the US, or any other country for that matter, to intervene militarily in the affairs of another country to establish democracy there; it is for the people of that country to determine who the ruler should be. Whether Maduro was authoritarian or not is thus completely irrelevant to the issue of US intervention.

Besides, Trump himself has openly admitted that Maduro’s principal opponent in Venezuela, Maria Corina Machado, did not enjoy sufficient popular support to take over the reins of administration after Maduro had been arrested. In a country with two main political platforms, if one does not enjoy sufficient popular support, then it stands to reason that the other must have greater support. In such a case, to claim, as Trump himself and many European leaders have done, that Maduro lacks political legitimacy, is utterly absurd. If Machado lacks political legitimacy and so does Maduro, then Trump must specify who in Venezuela does enjoy political legitimacy.

The real reason for removing Maduro was revealed by Trump with his characteristic bluntness, when he stated at his Press Conference on Saturday January 3: “We are going to be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground”. The money made according to him would not only go to the people of Venezuela but also to American oil companies and to the “United States of America in the form of reimbursement for damages caused us by that country”. The “damages” he was referring to were caused apparently by Venezuela’s nationalizing its oil resources. Venezuela has more oil reserves than any other country in the world, reserves amounting to as much as 17 percent of total world reserves. And Trump’s proposal to loot Venezuela’s oil is a brazen admission of his motive for taking over and “running” that country. This is nothing else but open gangsterism: you have oil and we shall take it from you by abducting your President if he stands in the way, and either by running your country directly as a colony or by putting in place some puppet government that would allow us to loot your country.

To be sure, looting the resources of other countries, including land or products of land, is what imperialism has always done; it is central to imperialism. After decolonization, it attempted to carry on the process of looting by toppling governments that stood in the way and putting in place pliant governments. The CIA-sponsored coups against Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran, Lumumba in Congo (as it was then called), and Allende in Chile, come to mind as obvious examples. More recently, the various colour revolutions in Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics, and the American assault on West Asia, belong to the same genre. The difference between all these earlier cases and Venezuela lies in the fact that in earlier cases the U.S. gave the appearance of supporting one side in an internal conflict, while working on coups behind the scenes; but in Venezuela it has simply carried out a military intervention without this fig-leaf of supporting one side in an internal conflict.

Of course, it also targets those countries which have anti-imperialist governments even when they may not be minerally rich, and Trump has already announced his plans of targeting Cuba, Mexico and Colombia as part of his attempted revival of the infamous Monroe Doctrine. But it is not just Latin America and the Caribbean that constitute the domain of his empire. No country in the world is safe from U.S. intervention today.

The Soviet Union had come to the defence of Cuba during the so-called Cuban missile crisis when the U.S. had threatened to attack that island, even at the risk of provoking a nuclear conflict with the U.S., just as it had earlier come to the defence of Egypt against an Anglo-French invasion following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal; in both cases imperialism had to beat a retreat. The absence of the Soviet Union today will be sorely missed by all countries of the world that are threatened by imperialism led by the U.S.

This gangster phase of imperialism which constitutes the highest stage of imperialism to date cannot obviously last for long. The people of the world, especially of the third world who have been victims of imperialism, will not allow themselves once again to remain in thraldom to imperialist domination. In fact even in earlier cases of imperialist gangsterism in the Arab world the outcome of its interference has been quite different from what was intended.

It is significant in this context that Trump’s bland assumption that, with Maduro out of the way, the Vice-President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, who has taken his place, will obey American diktat has already proved hollow: she has condemned the U.S. action and demanded the release of Maduro because of which Trump has started threatening her with “a fate worse than Maduro”; and indeed the entire country has stood up against this act of U.S. gangsterism. While the absence of the Soviet Union has emboldened imperialism in its quest for world domination, this domination will remain a pipe-dream.