I wrote this paper while I was in junior college, at a time when I thought things in Venezuela couldn’t possibly get worse.
Venezuela is currently experiencing the most extreme recession in its history. The country’s economic turmoil has been driven not only by the current government but also by the difficult transition from democracy to socialism. As with any major shift in power, the Venezuelan people have faced significant challenges and hardships, which raises an important question: Has socialism had the positive impact on the people of Venezuela that it once promised?
I’ve spent countless hours reflecting on this question and reading about the subject. I’ve also lived through this transition myself, having been born and raised in Venezuela for nearly twenty years. While many books have been written on this topic, it’s often clear which authors have truly experienced the country and which write from a distance. Regardless, no book can substitute the perspective of someone who lived through it. What follows is the result of both my research and my lived experience of Venezuela’s historic transformation.
The Legacy of Rafael Caldera and the Rise of Hugo Chávez
Rafael Caldera served as president of Venezuela from 1969 to 1974, and again from 1994 to 1999. He entered politics in the 1930s after earning a political science degree from the Central University of Venezuela and founded COPEI (Venezuela’s Christian Democratic Party) in 1946. Caldera was one of three signers of the Punto Fijo Pact, which established democratic elections following the fall of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez in 1958.
During his first term, Caldera eliminated the remnants of leftist guerrilla groups by granting a general amnesty. Decades later, in the wake of two failed military coups, he returned to power in 1993—this time without COPEI’s support, breaking the very power-sharing pact he had helped create. He led the country through a relatively stable period and again issued an amnesty, this time to one of the coup leaders: Hugo Chávez, who would be elected president in 1998.
Years later, Caldera warned that violence could erupt if Chávez continued using state resources to prevent a recall referendum. He also questioned the legitimacy of the new constitution that Chávez used to increase his powers. Chávez dismissed Caldera’s comments, saying they reflected “the depths of desperation” his opponents had reached, and accused him of creating a corrupt system that had left millions in poverty (The Associated Press).
Yet today, even some of Chávez’s former supporters wonder: Has socialism improved the lives of Venezuelan citizens? To explore this question, I analyzed two opposing perspectives: Eva Golinger’s The Chávez Code and Nikolas Kozloff’s Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S.
Eva Golinger’s Vision of Chávez and U.S. Intervention
Eva Golinger, a Venezuelan-American attorney and human rights advocate, is a strong supporter of Chávez. In The Chávez Code, she uses documents obtained through the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to argue that the U.S. supported opposition parties in Venezuela under the guise of preserving democracy.
Golinger portrays Venezuela as a victim of foreign interference, which—much like the Venezuelan government itself—serves to distract readers from the country’s real issues: education, security, and poverty. Approximately 70% of the book’s sources come from Venezuelanalysis.com, a pro-Chávez news website. Other contributors to the site, including Federico Fuentes and Michael Fox, share Golinger’s support of Chávez.
One of the book’s boldest claims reads:
“For any U.S. citizen who wonders what it means to fund democracy abroad, this book is essential reading.”
But Golinger’s ultimate message is more ideological:
“In the words of President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, we will not rest until we break all the chains that oppress our people—the chains of hunger, misery, and colonialism. This country will be free or will die trying to free it” (Golinger).
Nikolas Kozloff: A More Grounded Perspective
Nikolas Kozloff, an American journalist and scholar with a Ph.D. in Latin American history from Oxford, offers a more nuanced and critical view of Chávez’s presidency. In his book, Kozloff outlines Chávez’s alliances with Cuba, opposition to U.S. military and economic policy, and plans for sweeping social reforms funded by oil wealth.
Kozloff notes that Chávez claimed increased oil revenues would support social programs in education, housing, health, and land reform. However, during his travels across Venezuela, Kozloff found little evidence of meaningful social transformation—beyond political banners celebrating the Bolivarian Revolution.
Despite inefficiencies, corruption, and broken promises, Chávez remained a powerful figure on the world stage. Kozloff argues that while Chávez’s rhetoric opposed neoliberalism, Venezuela remained deeply entangled in global capitalism. To attract investment, Chávez would have had to engage with institutions like the IMF—something he vehemently opposed. Thanks to high oil prices and OPEC pressure, he was able to delay such negotiations. But how could Venezuela, with annual oil revenues of over $10.5 billion, have the highest increase in poverty in Latin America?
Transparency, Corruption, and Broken Promises
One of the most troubling aspects of Chávez’s presidency was the lack of transparency. According to Transparency International, Venezuela ranked 162 out of 179 countries for corruption (Gould). Billions in oil profits were funneled into non-transparent programs, including aid to foreign countries. These profits were supposed to support socialism—but often vanished with no public accountability.
An infamous incident involved a briefcase carrying $800,000 in cash on a private flight to Buenos Aires. In response, Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas released vague reports about FONDEN, Venezuela’s National Development Fund. Analysts found them lacking in detail, and no proper audit was ever conducted.
What Golinger Ignores
Golinger’s book fails to mention rising poverty, inequality, and lack of government accountability. It’s convenient to blame all of Venezuela’s challenges on U.S. intervention—but misleading. Golinger’s research overlooks the internal issues that most Venezuelans experience daily.
Chávez was elected to help the poor—but many of them now feel forgotten. A woman interviewed by UCAB (Universidad Católica Andrés Bello), where I studied for three years, put it bluntly:
“Chávez said he would put an end to poverty. What he’s really doing is putting an end to the poor.”
The Reality on the Ground
Two undeniable trends have defined Venezuela in the past two decades: a rise in inequality and a fall in per capita income. The Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, confirms this trend—though neither Golinger nor Kozloff address it in depth. The collapse in wage rates and capital hoarding contributed to Venezuela becoming one of the most unequal societies in the world, even surpassing South Africa and Brazil.
Meanwhile, Venezuela’s wealthy elite fled the country, often to Miami, leaving Chávez’s administration with little resistance from within.
Final Reflections
Through this investigation, I realized that while both Golinger and Kozloff offer valuable perspectives, they lack the lived experience of Venezuelans. Golinger focuses on declassified documents and ideological defense; Kozloff combines analysis with human stories, but even he only spent a limited time in Venezuela.
My experience tells a different story. One shaped by fear, resilience, lost promises, and a nation in decline. I believe that true change cannot come from propaganda or idealism—it must be measured by the lives of ordinary people.
For now, I will continue writing about the injustices and the poverty that socialism has brought to Venezuela, hoping one day to be part of its healing.
Poems From The Kitchen Table 
Leave a comment