NEW YORK TIMES HAILS NICOLAS MADURO’S ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM

The New York Times on February 8 published an article titled “To Survive, Venezuela’s Leader Gives Up Decades of Control Over Oil.” This is the second article in two weeks to describe Nicolás Maduro’s pragmatic economic policies which includes privatization and an opening up to foreign capital in the oil industry. The articles attribute the recent modest pickup of the Venezuelan economy to these pragmatic policies and are quick to point out that they go counter to Hugo Chávez’s strategy of asserting greater state control of the economy in the name of achieving socialism by gradual means. Actually, the articles aren’t bad, if you compare them with the coverage of the rest of the commercial media (including the New York Times in general) on Venezuela. But the authors fail to connect the dots. They talk about how Washington’s secondary boycott has made it difficult for Venezuela’s PDVSA to enter into commercial relations with intermediaries (insurance companies, shipping companies, etc.) to export crude and then they wonder why Maduro is privatizing exports. They also talk about Trump’s special permission to Chevron and 4 oil service companies (Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Schlumberger and Weatherfield) without pointing to the obvious favoritism toward U.S. capital in the name of fighting for democracy. In fact, it is a throwback to the inter-imperialist rivalry of the pre-World War I era given the fact that these are U.S. companies (Schlumberger is half U.S.) and that Washington is closing the doors on companies (such as the Spain’s Repsol) which are being threatened with a secondary boycott. 

There is opposition to Maduro’s pragmatism from within the pro-government Chavista movement (as opposed to those leftists such as Marea Socialista who make no distinction between Maduro and Juan Guaidó). This dissidence is heavily represented in the Chavista peasant movement that has opposed the privatization of state land (such as rice production) and has received backing from one of the top Chavista historical leaders, Elias Jaua. In this conflict between Maduro’s pragmatism and Madurista critics on the left, there may not be any “correct” answer as to who is correct. This conflict may be a manifestation of the “creative tensions” that Alvaro Garcia Linera alludes to in reference to the popular protests in Bolivia under Evo Morales or Mao’s “contradictions among the people.” A comparison may also be made with Lenin’s New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union in the 20s that gave rise to the Kulak class, which ended up resisting socialism. Thus a “correct” strategy at a given moment may lead to undesirable consequences. In any case, these developments have to be understood in the context of a crippling economic, political and cultural war on Venezuela led from Washington, which has limited the options for the Chavista government.