I’m perhaps wrong but if they sell the oil at an unfair price, while paying for the whole infrastructure themselves, then they could keep 100% of what the u.s. leaves them, and use it for the good of the venezuelans.


https://open.substack.com/pub/gzucman/p/understanding-us-intervention-in
« In 1958, the 40–50 thousand workers employed by the oil and iron industries, comprising less than 3% of the country’s total workforce, earned more than half of the country’s wages. In addition, their housing, education and health services were provided by their employers.
In contrast, the common city wage earner employed in industry and commerce on the other hand, spent 48% of his income on food. Less than one-third of dwellings were reported to have running water in the 1957 national census. Thus, even if Venezuela reportedly had the continent’s highest per capita income at the time—US$743 in 1962—this wealth was concentrated in the hands of those who benefited from the oil industry. » (source)

It depends on how much the u.s. intends to rob them but, foolishly perhaps, i’d like to naively hope that D.Trump would then leave them in peace despite their direct democracy and egalitarian values(, until the next u.s. president).

A weird idea would be a national referendum along the lines of “Would you rather [u.s. economic demands post-negotiations], or fight an invasion ?”, both to show that they’re not a dictatorship, and in order to leave the fate of the revolution to their hands.

Through negotiations, these kind of demands could be granted as long as it doesn’t exceed +10% of non-us products, reducing it to a selection of sectors. If it’s understood that it’d ease the negotiations on oil, and be included in the eventual national referendum, just my ignorant opinion.