Chavista Pragmatism Amid Siege and Multifactorial War

By Francisco Ameliach – Feb 17, 2026

Absolute or neoliberal pragmatism
Absolute or neoliberal pragmatism constitutes the approach of pragmatism as a driver of depoliticization and de-ideologization, one of the most relevant global sociopolitical phenomena of recent decades.

When politics shifts toward absolute pragmatism, it stops being a struggle of values and becomes an administration of resources. This results in the end of grand narratives. According to the logic of authors like Daniel Bell (The End of Ideology), it is assumed that the great historical disputes have ended and that only the optimization of the current predominant global system remains.

Hugo Chávez opposed the thesis of absolute pragmatism and “the end of ideologies.” In The Blue Book, he states the following: “We are indeed living in an era where ideologies seem to be extinguishing. ‘The end of ideologies,’ as many scholars of the time have called it… It is precisely in this de-ideologized framework, and aiming to find valid resources for our people to move forward through the intricate and complex map of the future, that we have dared to invoke an indigenous ideological model rooted in the depths of our origin and in the historical subconscious of the national being.”

Contemporary authors like Slavoj Žižek argue that absolute pragmatism is, in itself, the “invisible ideology.” By saying “I am not ideological, I am not political, I am practical,” one uncritically accepts the status quo (generally neoliberalism) as if it were a natural law and not a political choice.

The danger of absolute pragmatism is that it can turn politics into a mere “maintenance of the imperialist system,” losing the ability to imagine different futures or profound structural changes.

When absolute pragmatism clashes with revolutionary mystique, a rupture occurs that affects both the identity of the movement and its bond with the electorate. For a movement based on heroic struggle, such as the Bolivarian Revolution, historical and ideological memory is its main asset; it is what legitimizes its existence.

The loyalty of grassroots voters in epic movements is not rational-economic; it is mostly emotional and moral. Absolute pragmatism breaks this formula, leading to demobilization. Therefore, the heroic struggle requires active militancy. When the “mystique” disappears, the will to defend the project in times of crisis also disappears.

Chavista pragmatism
Without abandoning his strong ideological stance, Hugo Chávez proposed pragmatism as a method or tactic of active resistance to achieve ideological principles and historical objectives. For this reason, he criticized dogmatism, especially when he felt that theory distanced Chavistas from reality or from the efficiency necessary to govern.

Chávez used to criticize those who pretended to govern by following books to the letter, without correctly interpreting the various contexts that shape the existing reality. On one occasion, he said, “We should not get boxed in by dogmas. Dogmatism is the worst enemy of revolutionary creation.”

Regarding unity over “ideological purity,” Chávez was a great strategist of unity. He criticized ultra-left groups that fragmented due to “purisms.”

“Unity, unity, unity,” he famously said. “We must be able to work with those who do not think exactly like us in pursuit of a higher objective.”

The influence of Hugo Chávez’s anti-dogmatic thinking on the Anti-Blockade Law and the reform of the Organic Law of Hydrocarbons, both laws proposed by the current Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, is a direct line used by Nicolás Maduro’s government to legitimize a necessary shift to confront the economic blockade imposed by the United States. The law is not a betrayal of the Bolivarian Revolution, but an application of Chavista pragmatism under conditions of siege and multifactorial war.

Venezuela’s Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence (Full Translation)

When a government implements social, economic, or political reforms to avoid a war, it is applying a cost-benefit calculation. The pragmatism here lies in recognizing that the cost of reform is less than the total cost of an invasion, civil war, infrastructure destruction, and the possible loss of political power. We concede on the secondary: a law, an economic policy, to save the main thing: the existence of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

I have no doubt that Acting President Delcy Rodríguez is doing the right thing according to the logic of Chavista pragmatism. If Chávez were alive amid a threat of occupation or total collapse, he would not cling to a law that suffocated the people, but would rather “break the ties” to save the republic.

The Chavista pragmatism applied by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez allows the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to survive while maintaining its historical-ideological identity. It is precisely its historical-ideological identity that serves as the main deterrent against external and internal threats.

(franciscoameliach.com)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/SF