Venezuela sits on the precipice of a revolution. Nicolas Maduro, the dictatorial president of the South American nation, faced a near-certain ouster at the polling booth last Sunday. Exit polls and unofficial tallies showed the main opposition candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, winning with around 70% of the vote. At the moment, Maduro is still clinging to power by force. An elections commission under his control released its own results, claiming that he squeaked by with 51% of the vote and designating him as the winner. Few Venezuelans accept these fraudulent numbers, and even Maduro’s leftist allies in other Latin American countries are calling foul.

Perhaps sensing his time is limited, Maduro has now turned to a Soviet-style playbook of violent repression as his strategy for remaining in office. In the eyes of the New York Times though, Venezuela’s problems come from a different source. The culprit is not the Marxist strongman who’s desperately clinging to power or even the socialist economic policies that have thrust Venezuela into hyperinflation, poverty, and a massive exodus of its population. To Times reporters Anatoly Kurmanaev, Frances Robles, and Julie Turkewitz, Venezuela’s troubles come from “brutal capitalism.”

This was the conclusion of the newspaper’s coverage of Venezuela’s turmoil on the day of the vote. These three reporters extolled how the Chavismo movement, named after Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez, “initially promised to lift millions out of poverty.” “For a time it did,” they declare, “But in recent years, the socialist model has given way to brutal capitalism, economists say, with a small state-connected minority controlling much of the nation’s wealth.”

Note that Messrs. Kurmanaev, Robles, and Turkewitz do not name the “economists” who allegedly diagnosed Venezuela with “brutal capitalism.” Neither do they bother to explain what “brutal capitalism” entails. The Times reporters simply advance their interpretation by declamatory labels. To them, “capitalism” is somehow to blame for the unfolding humanitarian disaster of real-life socialism.

The New York Times’s bizarre interpretation of these events continues a long line of left-wing apologia around the repressive Chavez and Maduro regimes that have ruled Venezuela for a quarter century. Perhaps they had Joseph Stiglitz in mind as their “economist.” In the late 2000s, the Nobel laureate turned far-left pundit gushed with praise about Chavez’s alleged successes in “bringing education and health services to the barrios of Caracas” and did media appearances on the dictator’s behalf to promote a state-run banking scheme that never quite seemed to launch. His lack of self-awareness was on brazen display recently when he penned a new book that falsely portrays Milton Friedman as a “key adviser to the notorious Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet” (in reality, Friedman simply offered counsel to Chile about taming inflation—advice he gave to all manner of governments, left or right). Perhaps Stiglitz, who schmoozed with the Chavistas on an advisory trip to Caracas in 2007, should tend to the beam in his own eye before picking at specks in the eyes of others.

There’s a more fundamental problem with the Times’s reporting. In their strange attempt to reinvent Venezuela’s recent economic record as an outgrowth of “capitalism,” the newspaper ignores the obvious. Nicolas Maduro is an avowed Marxist. In a 2021 speech, he declared Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto “the most important political declaration in 200 years” and professed his fidelity to Marx’s theory of historical materialism. Maduro goes on to sing praises of precursor Marxist regimes, including V.I. Lenin’s Soviet Union, Mao Zedong’s China, and Fidel Castro’s Cuba. He portrays Venezuela as the successor to this legacy and tasks his regime with implementing Marx’s ideas for the 21st century.

Perhaps we should not be surprised to see the New York Times’s Orwellian attempt to reinvent the Maduro regime’s economic ruination as a product of “brutal capitalism.”The newspaper previously deployed a near-identical phrase as part of its 1619 Project, which ascribed plantation slavery to “the brutality of American capitalism.” 

As with Maduro today, this historical designation had no basis in economic reality. Most plantation owners saw themselves as part of a pre-capitalist and pre-industrial feudal order—indeed,the slaveowners of the past designated market capitalism as a threat to slavery—just as Maduro deems it a threat to his socialist government today. But quaint concepts such as fact, accuracy, and precision have long ceased to concern the editors at New York’s self-designated “paper of record.” Like the Maduro regime they grovel before and uphold, only the political narrative matters.