Venezuela - private business grows over public sector in 2011

[Nolan]

Saw this, found it interesting.

http://www.rnv.gob.ve/noticias/?act=ST&f=4&t=157339

I'll save revlefters the trouble and run it through Google translate:


Private company grew over the public sector in 2011
The chairman of the Central Bank of Venezuela said that the electricity sector recorded growth of 3.1%, conduct directly related to government investment
Prensa Web RNV
May 23 2011, 01:29 PM




Listen to the president of the BCV, Nelson Merentes (Mp3 28seg 2min)
Click to hear audio
(Number of downloads: 27)

In the first quarter of 2011 the private sector, comprising companies involved in manufacturing (food, chemicals, paper pulp, etc.) grew by 7.6 percent, up from 4.5 percent of gross domestic product, according to Central Bank figures of Venezuela.

During the program throughout Venezuela, broadcast by Venezolana de Televisión, Nelson Merentes, stressed that "the private sector recorded strong growth over the public sector", noting that all factors of the economy grew with the exception of the construction and oil .

The electricity sector, he added, grew by 3.1 percent, conduct directly related to the investment made by the national government to meet the demand in this sector.

Despite the deep recession that Venezuela's economy record for the world capitalist crisis, the unemployment rate remained and social factors did not.

On this point, he recalled that in 2003 and 2004, during which there was a recession for political reasons, the National Executive responded by creating a set of humanist mission to reverse this situation in the short and medium term.

This position confirms Merentes view of the nature of human-oriented model to the attention of the most dispossessed classes, focusing on the welfare of the population.

The Venezuelan model is double jointed, he said, aimed to support economic growth and social classes. "We have a government that serves the human aspect, the welfare of the person."

[RedSunRising]

Chavez represents the patriotic and to some degree progressive (because they are opposed to US and transnational companies Imperialism and because they have to lean on the working class in their struggle against Imperialism and the compradors) capitalists so this is no surprise. Working class and peasant political independence is desperately needed there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't agree with you on the existence of any "patriotic" or "progressive" bourgeoisie, but your last sentence is bang-on.

[RedSunRising]

^^^ I don't agree with you on the existence of any "patriotic" or "progressive" bourgeoisie, but your last sentence is bang-on.

This by the way is me and not an official Maoist line...Where does the support for Chavez come from within the real decision making core of that society? I dont think it can be argued seriously that figures such as Chavez, Thomas Sankara and Robert Mugabe (even maybe Ghaddafi before he sold out) were not both progressive, patriotic and bourgeois. That said I support alliances with such forces only in certain circumstances and on working class and poor peasant terms.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Of course the Private Sector is continuing to grow at the cost of the Working Class in Venezuela being exploited as Hugo himself is a Reformist and offers no actual attempts to seize production itself. More or less-- Chavez simply offers a 'progressive' outlook in Venezuela that compared to the others is by far more 'Socialist' in mindset. However, it can't be forgotten that despite Chavez offering a 'progressive' choice of Reformism, that in the end it is still reformism and reformism itself ultimately amounts to nothing in terms of actually seizing production and forming a Working Class State.

Instead what should be pushed forward is:

The Working Class's class consciousness continuing to rise and Chavez's politics being realized as still being reformist and in the end offering no actual change for the Working Class other than an electoral alternative that ultimately amounts to nothing and doesn't resist Capitalism at its very core and simply believes that Capitalism is capable of existing along side an alternative system.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I saw this too and found it interesting. But perhaps it is being misinterpreted? I think a lot of it might have to do with pure economics.

We know already that Venezuela has a two-pronged system; a semi-socialist state economy, and a capitalist private economy, existing side by side with occasional expropriations (no privatizations) transferring capital from the private to the state. The Venezuelan economy has been stagnant since 2009 I think. In that period the private sector shrank substantially and didnt recover in 2010. I don't think the public sector shrank in this period, but it seems that the private one did quite a bit. A lot of it had to do with lower productivity due to electricity blackouts and less foreign currency.

Now, however, high oil prices, better electric services and perhaps better government policies as well have improved economic growth, but a lot of it may just be the private sector springing back to where it was before more than expanding. Private companies are no longer dealing with power cuts and a shortage of money, and so can be as productive as they were before.

The PSUV is trying to find some ground in between revolution and reform. Of course, trying is the operative word ... it doesn't seem like their system always works the best.


Chavez, Thomas Sankara and Robert Mugabe (even maybe Ghaddafi before he sold out) were not both progressive, patriotic and bourgeoisMugabe ... the guy who calls himself Hitler, butchers ethnic minorities and has disgusting polemics against homosexuals? How is he "progressive"? If he's "Progressive" then the term "Progressive" has no meaning.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

This by the way is me and not an official Maoist line...Where does the support for Chavez come from within the real decision making core of that society? I dont think it can be argued seriously that figures such as Chavez, Thomas Sankara and Robert Mugabe (even maybe Ghaddafi before he sold out) were not both progressive, patriotic and bourgeois. That said I support alliances with such forces only in certain circumstances and on working class and poor peasant terms.
While I agree with this to a certain point, I disagree with your attitude towards Thomas Sankara, Thomas Sankara was indeed progressive as Thomas Sankara had allowed the Working Class to seize control over Burkina Faso and had played part in the creation of CDR's in order to place the control over Burkina Faso to the Working Class. Not to mention, he had unlike certain other figures such as Chavez actually led forward an actual Revolution in Burkina Faso through the means of a coup which was to place the people in power. I don't see why you include 'Gadaffi' as a 'maybe' when compared to Gadaffi, Sankara was actually legitimately interested at leading out a revolution into its entirety and pushing for the foundations of Socialism in Burkina Faso. As well, what relates to this is the progression of Sankara's character and thought as time went on that were related to the foundation and implementation of Socialism.

Quite honestly though, I don't see the point of Marxist-Leninist criticism of Sankara, as Sankara came to terms with several key Marxist-Leninist points that were put forward and had himself believed that the Burkina Revolution could not be imported at the whim of Burkina Faso attempting to spread Revolutionary ideals, and-- He directly came to the point of Lenin's theory of Imperialism has time had gone on.


Mugabe ... the guy who calls himself Hitler, butchers ethnic minorities and has disgusting polemics against homosexuals? How is he "progressive"? If he's "Progressive" then the term "Progressive" has no meaning.The keyword there is 'Not.'

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The keyword there is 'Not.'

Isn't there a double negative there?


I dont think it can be argued ... were not both progressive, patriotic and bourgeoisI think red sun is saying they are progressive bourgeois. I would not consider Mugabe progressive patriotic bourgeois because he is a homophobic sociopath who has before ordered the slaughter of ethnic minorities.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Isn't there a double negative there?

I think red sun is saying they are progressive bourgeois. I would not consider Mugabe progressive patriotic bourgeois because he is a homophobic sociopath who has before ordered the slaughter of ethnic minorities.
1.) 'I think red sun is saying they are progressive bourgeois.'
I was assuming that Red Sun was referring to them as not being progressive.
2.) 'I would not consider Mugabe progressive patriotic bourgeois because he is a homophobic sociopath who has before ordered the slaughter of ethnic minorities'
It depends which period of time we're talking about during the 1980's and the War of Liberation in Zimbabwe against Minority Rule, Mugabe had indeed during this time had been progressive and to an extent had served the interests of the people of Zimbabwe as a whole. However, obviously this had decayed into Mugabe seizing a hold of Zimbabwe and him being a 'homophobic sociopath who had ordered the slaughters of ethnic minorities.'

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Except it was in the 80s that he was slaughtering minorities. He went after the Ndebele, I suppose for supporting the Soviet-backed guerrillas instead of his own. That's why I find the argument that he was progressive even back then to be at best ignorant. I think he is more of a violent Shona nationalist than an African socialist.

Anyways, as to whether or not red sun was referring to them as being progressive bourgeois or not, I will let him/her answer. I'm not sure now actually :P but it seems to make more sense in the context of his/her first post where it was argued that Chavez is a "to some degree" progressive bourgeois.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Except it was in the 80s that he was slaughtering minorities. He went after the Ndebele, I suppose for supporting the Soviet-backed guerrillas instead of his own. That's why I find the argument that he was progressive even back then to be at best ignorant. I think he is more of a violent Shona nationalist than an African socialist.

Anyways, as to whether or not red sun was referring to them as being progressive bourgeois or not, I will let him/her answer. I'm not sure now actually :P but it seems to make more sense in the context of his/her first post where it was argued that Chavez is a "to some degree" progressive bourgeois.
1.) You're referring to the infighting that had resulted from the split between ZAPU and ZANU. It is indeed true that the majority of those in the Militant Group that had resulted from the split had been Ndebele, however, at best it is massively accusative to say that Mugabe's Party had gone out of its way during the War of Liberation to massacre Civilians in areas that were predominantly Ndebele. Especially, when after the two major incidents, both Militant Groups had sought to be combined together which was solidified after the treaty between Mugabe and Nkomo.
2.) Compared to alternatives (Smith's Government, Paramilitaries and others) Mugabe during the War of Liberation in Zimbabwe was indeed quite progressive against White Minority Rule over Zimbabwe.
3.) Mugabe has never fully gone out of his way to continually slaughter those involved with a different ethnic group, he has indeed been engaged in Anti-Proletarian violent actions such as township demolishing in Zimbabwe and as recently shown he suppressed the ISO and other Socialists through violent means. Mugabe more or less is simply an Authoritarian Bourgeois Ruler that is apart of Zimbabwe's new Ruling Class.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

1.) You're referring to the infighting that had resulted from the split between ZAPU and ZANU. It is indeed true that the majority of those in the Militant Group that had resulted from the split had been Ndebele, however, at best it is massively accusative to say that Mugabe's Party had gone out of its way during the War of Liberation to massacre Civilians in areas that were predominantly Ndebele. Especially, when after the two major incidents, both Militant Groups had sought to be combined together which was solidified after the treaty between Mugabe and Nkomo.


http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=3843

Within the space of six weeks, more than 2000 civilians had died, hundreds of homesteads had been burnt, and thousands of civilians had been beaten. Most of the dead were killed in public executions, involving between 1 and 12 people at a time. The largest number of dead in a single incident so far on record was in Lupane, where 62 men and women were shot on the banks of the Cewale River on 5 March.
The uniformed 5 Brigade soldiers arrived and ordered my husband to carry all the chairs, a table, bed, blankets, clothes and put them in one room. They also took all our cash - we had $1,500 saved, to buy a scotch cart. They then set fire to the hut and burnt all our property.

They accused my husband of having a gun, which he did not have. They shot at him. The first two times, they missed, but the third time they shot him in the stomach and killed him.

They then beat me very hard, even though I was pregnant. I told them I was pregnant, and they told me I should not have children for the whole of Zimbabwe. My mother-in-law tried to plead with them, but they shouted insults at her. They hit me on the stomach with the butt of the gun. The unborn child broke into pieces in my stomach. The baby boy died inside. It was God's desire that I did not die too. The child was born afterwards, piece by piece. A head alone, then a leg, an arm, the body - piece by piece.
I know Nkomo agreed to let bygones be bygones, but I don't know if he had much option after the massacres. On the other hand, it's pretty clear though that Mugabe had the 5th brigade commit brutal attacks against civilian Ndebele.


2.) Compared to alternatives (Smith's Government, Paramilitaries and others) Mugabe during the War of Liberation in Zimbabwe was indeed quite progressive against White Minority Rule over Zimbabwe. Perhaps he was more progressive than an apartheid dictatorship, but that's setting the bar pretty low.


3.) Mugabe has never fully gone out of his way to continually slaughter those involved with a different ethnic group, he has indeed been engaged in Anti-Proletarian violent actions such as township demolishing in Zimbabwe and as recently shown he suppressed the ISO and other Socialists through violent means. Mugabe more or less is simply an Authoritarian Bourgeois Ruler that is apart of Zimbabwe's new Ruling Class. Perhaps he didn't have a "final solution" to the Ndebele, but it doesn't minimize the fact that his armies did terrorize and brutalize farmers from that ethnic group. A partial genocide is still genocide.

The slum-clearing and targeting of ISO activists is true, however, and I've posted about the slum-clearing before. It is more proof in my mind that he's in no way progressive. Certainly, no real progressive would demolish the homes of almost 1 million poor people without even bothering to offer better homes. Compare this to Chavez, who has a much closer relation to slum dwellers.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

http://www.africafiles.org/article.asp?ID=3843
I know Nkomo agreed to let bygones be bygones, but I don't know if he had much option after the massacres. On the other hand, it's pretty clear though that Mugabe had the 5th brigade commit brutal attacks against civilian Ndebele.

Perhaps he was more progressive than an apartheid dictatorship, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

Perhaps he didn't have a "final solution" to the Ndebele, but it doesn't minimize the fact that his armies did terrorize and brutalize farmers from that ethnic group. A partial genocide is still genocide.

The slum-clearing and targeting of ISO activists is true, however, and I've posted about the slum-clearing before. It is more proof in my mind that he's in no way progressive. Certainly, no real progressive would demolish the homes of almost 1 million poor people without even bothering to offer better homes. Compare this to Chavez, who has a much closer relation to slum dwellers.

1.) 'I know Nkomo agreed to let bygones be bygones, but I don't know if he had much option after the massacres. On the other hand, it's pretty clear though that Mugabe had the 5th brigade commit brutal attacks against civilian Ndebele.'
Again, I never denied this as previously said however. Mugabe had committed these attacks on the Ndebele though due to the rivalry between the two Militant Groups and the already decaying hopeless seeming form of a struggle that had been occurring.
2.) ' Perhaps he was more progressive than an apartheid dictatorship, but that's setting the bar pretty low.'
However, we're setting the bar at this as I'm referring to Mugabe during the War of Liberation in Zimbabwe and the ousting out the Smith Government that represented White Minority Control.
3.) 'Perhaps he didn't have a "final solution" to the Ndebele, but it doesn't minimize the fact that his armies did terrorize and brutalize farmers from that ethnic group. A partial genocide is still genocide.'
However, to which point are you going to call it a 'partial' genocide. As said, I have doubts over whether or not they were targeted simply due to them being Ndebele, but instead I have the inclination to believe that they were killed due to having been in a ZANU controlled area. (Which was Rival to Mugabe at the time.)
4.) 'Certainly, no real progressive would demolish the homes of almost 1 million poor people without even bothering to offer better homes. Compare this to Chavez, who has a much closer relation to slum dwellers.'
Part One: Its obvious that Mugabe has been un-progressive but it needs to be understood that during the War of Liberation that both Militant Groups had entered a state of decayed tactics and had committed wrongs against each other. As well as at the same time, the South African Apartheid Government and the Smith Government brutally massacring members of the African Majority and even after the Non-Alignment Conference was held in Zimbabwe-- Just afterward engaging in a bombing attack against Zimbabwe.
Part Two: Chavez and Mugabe are of two different situations.

Be aware though, I'm not taking up for Mugabe nor am I considering Mugabe to be progressive.

[REDSOX]

People should bear in mind that this is a gradual process towards socialism and that last year chavez government nationalised over 360 companies foreign and domestic and seized millions of hectares of land. Patience everybody they are getting there

[Thirsty Crow]

People should bear in mind that this is a gradual process towards socialism and that last year chavez government nationalised over 360 companies foreign and domestic and seized millions of hectares of land. Patience everybody they are getting there
Yeah, but they should also mind that there can be no "gradual process towards socialism" in one country totally dependent on the capitalist world market.

[Rafiq]

First the attack on FARC, now this.


I think it's about time the 'Anti Imperialists' in this site admit to being wrong about chavez.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

First the attack on FARC, now this.


I think it's about time the 'Anti Imperialists' in this site admit to being wrong about chavez.

1.) 'First the attack on FARC, now this. '
Hugo Chavez's recent attitudes towards FARC quite blatantly shows that Hugo Chavez is neither an Anti-Imperialist nor a representative of the Proletariat, as FARC (Despite certain negative actions) are struggling against both Imperialism and Capitalism within Colombia.

Not to mention that if he extradites the Second in Command of FARC to Colombia, he will be aiding to Imperialism even further while the United States refuses to extradite various Terrorists that have acted against both the Venezuelan and Cuban people. (Posada for example.)

Chavez attempting to appease the Puppet Regime in Colombia with his recent stance against FARC is utterly atrocious and Imperialistic in nature.
2.) 'I think it's about time the 'Anti Imperialists' in this site admit to being wrong about chavez'

Chavez however should be regarded as nothing more than a somewhat progressive Bourgeois leader that uses Populism to his advantage. In fact-- Chavez should have been regarded as nothing more than this to begin with. Anti-Imperialism however should still be upheld from potential actions from the United States against the Venezuelan people.

[Rafiq]

I swear I can remember like 10 threads a while ago of Marxist Leninists defending him as a genuine socialist, representative of the venezualan proletariat.

[Jose Gracchus]

An idiotic poster once suggested "he's building socialism faster than the Bolsheviks."

[the last donut of the night]

People should bear in mind that this is a gradual process towards socialism and that last year chavez government nationalised over 360 companies foreign and domestic and seized millions of hectares of land. Patience everybody they are getting there

1. Socialism is not instituted through reforms, but through a fundamental change in property relations. This is basic Marxism.

2. Nationalization does not mean socialism.

pretty simple imo

[Nordic Syndicalist]

1. Socialism is not instituted through reforms, but through a fundamental change in property relations. This is basic Marxism.

2. Nationalization does not mean socialism.

pretty simple imo

Exactly, I dislike the public-private dichotomy, as though nationalization means socialism and voluntary/private control of the structure of production means capitalism. Just because the National Government seizes the capitalist structure of production from private individuals doesn't automatically mean the economic structure becomes socialist or in the long run benefits the working class. In Venezuela workers are still detached from control from the structure of production, and ceos and executives are just being replaced by government bureaucrats. I think this dichotomy should be disregarded and scrapped by socialists. And just because a leader opposes Anglo-American Imperialism, doesn't make them revolutionary, socialist, or forward-thinking. More often than not, so called "anti-imperialists" are really right wing reactionaries and opportunists who use socialist rhetoric to manipulate the working class and grab power.

[pranabjyoti]

Well, the question now is who can be the "left" alternative of Chavez in Venezuela. We need someone very dearly at present.

[the last donut of the night]

Well, the question now is who can be the "left" alternative of Chavez in Venezuela. We need someone very dearly at present.

I think the worker militias, that, although connected to the PSUV apparatus, have a lot of potential. The trots (shitstorm) have been doing a lot of good work too.

[Delenda Carthago]

Trapped in a world where the chrouchevists nepalists, socialdemocrat Chavez and greek anarchists are our best chances...


shit...

[RedSunRising]

Trapped in a world where the chrouchevists nepalists, socialdemocrat Chavez and greek anarchists are our best chances...


shit...

You spoke my mind.

We should all ask ourselves cant we do better???

[Delenda Carthago]

You spoke my mind.

We should all ask ourselves cant we do better???
I dont have a fuckin clue to be honest...

[pranabjyoti]

I think the worker militias, that, although connected to the PSUV apparatus, have a lot of potential. The trots (shitstorm) have been doing a lot of good work too.
At least someone is necessary to lead it.

[Ocean Seal]

I swear I can remember like 10 threads a while ago of Marxist Leninists defending him as a genuine socialist, representative of the venezualan proletariat.
We were wrong. Venezuela should only be defended from an anti-imperialist standpoint now.

[RadioRaheem84]

When it says the private sector is growing, does it just mean private business owned by capitalists or does it include the co-ops and worker managed companies? I too think the "growth" of the private sector is really just the economy recovering from the 09 slump. At this point it can be really said that Chavez is just a run of the mill social democrat, confusing Soc Dem for actual socialism. In a right wing world, he is considered pretty radical though.

The only hope lies in the populace he actually radicalized and the base of the PSUV which is still under the impression that genuine socialism is the end goal.

The sad thing is that Venezuela is the model Cuba wants to follow.

[pranabjyoti]

When it says the private sector is growing, does it just mean private business owned by capitalists or does it include the co-ops and worker managed companies? I too think the "growth" of the private sector is really just the economy recovering from the 09 slump. At this point it can be really said that Chavez is just a run of the mill social democrat, confusing Soc Dem for actual socialism. In a right wing world, he is considered pretty radical though.

The only hope lies in the populace he actually radicalized and the base of the PSUV which is still under the impression that genuine socialism is the end goal.

The sad thing is that Venezuela is the model Cuba wants to follow.
I want to know about the general opinion of the members of people's militia and workers who are now running factories about arresting and extraditing leaders of a militant group, who are fighting a dirty, ruthless US pet government just in their own neighborhood. Do they think that by doing this, they can buy some kind of concession from US imperialism and their pet Colombian rulers? Do they think, for the sake of the just Venezuelan people, everything in the world can be forgot and if that even make a small-term negligible gain, they don't have to care about the opinion of rest of struggling people around the world who can be possible allies of Venezuela in future against US imperialism?