Venezuelan Oil Backs Economic Growth

Caracas, Aug 28 (Prensa Latina) Venezuela’s oil industry is a key element in the sustained growth of the domestic economy, based on one of the world’s largest reserves of crude oil.

The hydrocarbon sector, which has proved reserves of more than 88,000 barrels, is the engine pulling comprehensive productive and social programs in Venezuela.

As part of those programs, authorities will create new branches of the state-owned company Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), an initiative that is being debated by the Central Planning Commission.

The project consists of setting up seven PDVSA branches, including PDVSA Servicios, PDVSA Industrial, PDVSA Gas Popular, PDVSA Naval, PDVSA Agricola, PDVSA Desarrollos Urbanos and PDVSA Ingenieria y Construccion.

That measure will expand the company’s influence on several economic sectors such as food production and housing, among other activities.

The government has ratified Venezuela’s sovereignty over its natural resources, which have been available to the people after the reforms made over the past few years.

In addition, the government has strengthened that sovereignty in the constitutional reform, as the State reserves “the exploitation of liquid, solid and gas hydrocarbons due to sovereignty and development reasons, and national interest.”

ef jg mem

PL-27

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={A385F6D9-E285-4BC3-8DFF-E2188F5970F7})&language=EN

Exactly and on top of it most of the members are academic types and students.Who spend more time talking than doing.They latch on to one or two aspects of Marx’s writings and then try and make every thing fit,in short they try and make the working class fit some preordained theory(usually their own) or supposed path to socialism.Well life works quit different and is much more complex and nuanced,so they just reject.
No revolution will ever fit with these groups,unless they are the one leading it(god forbid)

And, further, the comment about Marxist-Leninist must be seen in the context of the position of the PCV (Vzlan CP) which officially rejected joining in the PSUV because this was the time for the broad anti-imperialist struggle whereas the (always later) struggle for socialism would require a Marxist-Leninist Party.

I don’t have the specific sources that Louis is looking for but there are transcripts of the ‘Alo Presidente’ programmes on line. One recent programme (#287) from the state of Vargas (devoted to the idea of socialist cities) was described by ABN, the Bolivarian news agency on 22 July; there, he said roughly:

“I respect deeply the thesis of Carlos Marx and his great contribution to the humanity with the discovery of socialism”, affirmed Chávez from the place where the first socialist city of the country is being constructed.

He added: ‘I am socialist, bolivariano, revolutionary. I respect the Marxist route, but I am not Marxist. I cannot share that thesis because that is a determinist vision of the socialism”.

He remembered that Marx, “deceived and manipulated, got to approve the invasion from the United States to Mexico and from England to India because he thought that was the route towards capitalism and that soon, as a product of the development of the productive forces, would enter the socialism”.

“Under that argument, we, the backward countries, never would arrive at the socialism because we would have to wait first that they invade us, that they develop us, and then soon to go to socialism”, the Chief of State explained while she talked by telephone with a listener.

Yes, Marx gave some details about how to go from capitalism to socialism, but “that capitalist system was very different from the wild Capitalism of our days and, for that reason, the socialism of today corresponds for us to detail it”.

Jeesh! You mean that we have to do some concrete analysis???? Of course, Marx wasn’t a ‘Marxist’ either (nor was Lenin).

ps. re the ‘working class’: probably means the organised-in-trade-union group (which some might view as an aristocracy of labour in Vzla); it is to be noted that he’s communing with Negri (his guest for the unveiling of the constitutional proposals) these days.

It’s ironic that you wrote that because you pored over Sustar’s text to establish the blasphemy of his arguments. Your whole post is devoted to two sentences where Sustar in passing mentions Chavez’s take on Lenin and the gang as well as his stance on private property. Then, you take a line from the Orlando Chirno interview, and presto you have a critique of the ISO! But you glossed over the political substance of both pieces.

There are major fights brewing within Venezuela’s unions about how much independence (if any) they should have from the Chavez government, how to relate to the party Chavez has created, how to fight the government for good contracts for state employees, etc and you focus on whether or not Sustar has a link to some speech Chavez gave at some point over the last 2-5 years? These topics get at the heart of what the concrete shape of what 21st century socialism will be and what are the class forces shaping the revolutionary process.

When I saw your post, I was afraid Sustar’s piece consisted of Chavez quotes and an accompanying denunciation of X position a la WSWS.org. What I found instead was a thoughtful anaylsis of where the class struggle is headed in Venezuela, what political forces there are on the ground shaping that struggle, and an account of the splits and regroupments that are developing in tandem with the class struggle.

How not to write about Venezuela? How about how not to write about someone’s writing on Venezuela?

When I come across items like this, I always find myself wondering whether the polemics are directed out of some sort of malice or whether it’s laziness. In answering this, I find that a variant of Hanlon’s razor is useful: never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by laziness.

I think your piece does a great job of illustrating this point.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2007_07.pdf