People Before Profit blog

Or peoples needs?

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:07:00 +0000

Conservative economists seem concerned about the changes taking place within Venezuela’s state-run oil company, PDVSA. They argue that Venezuela’s decreased oil production is proof of its inefficient and wasteful practices. They say that oil companies should do what they do best — find and produce oil; that government involvement only leads to nepotism, patronage and bureaucracy; that political loyalists are in charge rather than experts; and that PDVSA’s contributions to social projects, like the education, health care and food “missions” set up by the Chavez administration, should be redirected into maintaining current wells, drilling new ones, and developing technology to increase production.

For example, the scribes at the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently wrote: “Since Mr. Chavez took power in 1999, he has become PDVSA’s de facto CEO, steering the oil company into political, economic and philanthropic ventures that have distracted it from its core business of finding and producing more oil.” As a result, they say, “output has fallen to an estimated 1.6 million barrels a day from nearly 3 million barrels in 1998.”

However, by claiming that “political, economic and philanthropic ventures” somehow distract PDVSA from its “core” business, and that this distraction has caused the oil giant’s output to fall, the WSJ misrepresents reality, at least Venezuela’s socialist reality.

Let’s look at these assumptions and see if they hold up. First, if PDVSA were in a capitalist country its “core” business would be “finding and producing more oil” as a means of increasing profits. However, since it is in Venezuela, where the “core” business is building 21st century socialism, PDVSA’s priorities are different from those of its capitalist counterparts. This is where part of the WSJ’s concern comes from.

In socialism, maximizing profits isn’t the priority. Investing in human capital is, which is why PDVSA is funding education, health care and food “missions.”

In fact, with government guidance, PDVSA spends at least 10 percent of its annual investment budget on social programs worth about $1 billion a year. It also subsidizes construction projects, including building and repairing roads, and gives other types of economic aid to the society as a whole. This totaled about $8 billion last year alone.

While PDVSA’s investment in social missions and infrastructure building can’t be measured by traditional profit margins, that doesn’t mean that PDVSA isn’t profitable in the traditional sense. In fact, from 2004 to 2005 it increased profits by over 50 percent and earned $10.1 billion, up from $6.7 billion. The WSJ doesn’t have a problem with PDVSA’s profitability. But it has a major problem with how PDVSA’s profits are distributed. Instead of distracting PDVSA from its “core” business, Venezuela’s president has redefined PDVSA’s priorities within the boundaries of a new social reality, the building of socialism. This is what really concerns the WSJ.

The second assumption made by the WSJ is a little complicated. They claim that output has fallen by almost half to 1.6 million barrels a day (MBD) since Chavez was elected president. PDVSA’s social spending “gives the company less time and money to devote to its oil business,” the WSJ complains. “It spent just $60 million on exploration in 2004, compared with $174 million in 2001.” So according to the WSJ, PDVSA is spending less on investment, maintenance and repair, and this is why production has decreased.

PDVSA, on the other hand, puts its actual daily output at 2.2 MBD, with 1.5 MBD going to the U.S. So Venezuela’s oil production has declined some, but not as much as the WSJ would have us believe.

PDVSA is the world’s third largest oil company, and oversees the extraction of the biggest oil reserve outside of the Middle East. It says that production has remained steady since 2004. It says production will reach 4 MBD by 2012. However, it says, increased production has to be connected to social welfare.

According to the WSJ, PDVSA’s “ ambivalence about boosting oil production is seen in the shallow waters of the remote Gulf of Paria,” where the U.S. oil giant Conoco Phillips discovered the Corocoro oil field. As Conoco was about to transport a U.S.-made drilling platform to the area in 2004, PDVSA refused and insisted that the company use a Venezuelan platform. “Nowhere else in the world do you have a field with 500 million barrels that just sits there,” said the WSJ.

But that’s the point. National sovereignty and the development of Venezuela’s infrastructure isn’t in Conoco Phillips’ or the WSJ’s interests, nor the class that they represent. While the Venezuelan people are willing to sacrifice some short-term gains (by using Venezuelan-made platforms, for example) for long-term self-sufficiency, that has nothing to do with the amount of money PDVSA spends on the social missions. So while the WSJ may be concerned, it’s not for the reasons they indicate. And, while production is down, that also isn’t for the reasons they indicate.

Venezuela is moving along the path of socialism. This path is the path of national sovereignty, not imperialist dependency. The Venezuelan government should not be criticized for building its infrastructure. Building socialism while remaining dependent on imperialism is a contradiction. But the WSJ isn’t one to highlight such contradictions.

Tony Pecinovsky (tonypec@cpusa.org) is the district staff person for the Communist Party in Missouri and Kansas.

Ending terrorism

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:27:00 +0000

After British authorities announced last week that a new terrorist plot had been uncovered, officials in the U.S. and Britain raised their threat alerts to the highest level, ramping up airline passenger and luggage searches. The British government said 21 people had been arrested, including the alleged ringleaders.

On the eve of the five-year anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 — a tragedy that cost thousands of lives — it is clear such reports must be taken with the utmost seriousness.

However, the Bush administration is also obviously using the reports for its own purposes. President Bush learned about the situation in detail on Aug. 5. Three days later, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman — one of the strongest supporters of the administration’s war in Iraq — was soundly defeated by antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in that state’s Democratic primary.

The administration responded by blasting Democrats as “soft on terror,” knowing full well what the public didn’t yet — that the British reports were soon to hit the news.

This is far from the first time the administration has used reports of impending threats and the resulting heightened alert status to boost its political fortunes.

The real question, though, is how to eliminate terrorist attacks once and for all. That won’t be done by denouncing those who oppose the administration’s policy in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe, or by stepping up military and surveillance measures.

Rather, it will require a fundamental shift away from the extreme right corporate drive to dominate and exploit the rest of the world, and toward working together to end war, poverty, hunger and disease.

To eliminate acts of terror, whether their origin is individual, group or state, start by ending one of the greatest acts of state terrorism — the war and occupation of Iraq. Stop the barrage of threats against Iran, Syria, North Korea. Insist on a complete cease-fire and Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and a viable two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. Start the process of complete worldwide nuclear disarmament. Use the resources of the world’s richest country to lead the attack on hunger, poverty and disease.

These are real steps to end terrorism.

Women propel Venezuelas revolution forward

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:09:00 +0000

CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela: Ahora es de todos! This slogan, appearing on a poster beneath a simple drawing of three children in the colors of the national flag, means “Venezuela: Now it’s for everyone.”

The slogan captures the ambitious and exciting social justice aims of the Bolivarian Revolution and the government of President Hugo Chavez, which is set to initiate a public discussion on the meaning of “21st-century socialism” next year.

And the problems and needs of the Venezuelan people are great: in the two decades prior to Chavez’s election, poverty had grown to include 80 percent of the population, the gap between rich and poor was one of the widest in the world, and the gross domestic product had steadily dropped. Not surprisingly, illiteracy was widespread and public health was a nonissue in this period of “neoliberal” budget austerity and cuts in social programs.

Women defend their gains

All that began to change when Chavez was sworn into office in 1999. And while millions of poor and working-class people have since benefited from the Chavez government’s public works projects, social programs, and efforts to involve ordinary people in building a new society, women have benefited the most.

In April of 2002, when right-wing forces from Venezuela’s wealthy ruling class attempted to overthrow President Chavez and derail his ambitious new government, their coup attempt failed because hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans rallied to support the president, occupying the streets around the government offices and media outlets in Caracas for days.

In a recent interview with Elena Linares, a member of the Communist Party of Venezuela (CPV) and the leader of its work among women, she said that the majority of the people in the streets at that critical moment were women.

A stake in deep changes

Why? “Simple,” Linares said. “Women had experienced a dramatic change in their status with the new Constitution.” Among the changes were laws that aid single mothers, that recognize and compensate domestic work, and that include all women in the social security system.

Women understood what it would mean if those who wanted to overthrow Chavez succeeded. “There was a feeling of rage at the opposition, that they would take away the rights that had been won,” she said. Linares herself was there in those April days and saw women lie down in front of tanks.

Carolus Wimmer, the international secretary of the CPV, agreed. “The motive factor in the big changes after the coup attempt was Venezuelan women. Women were the first into the streets, women organized their men to fight back.”

Getting organized

The interview with Linares took place in the offices of Inamujer, the national women’s organization reorganized in 2002 by President Chavez and headed by María León, a leading women’s rights activist and Communist. Inamujer is engaged in many projects aimed at educating women and drawing them into the political process.

The organization has a free telephone hotline for victims of domestic violence and now operates three shelters for abused women. One of the goals of Inamjuer and of the Chavez government is to establish shelters in every state of the country.

A breakthrough constitution

Thousands of women were involved in the drafting of the new Venezuelan Constitution, which has been referred to as the “non-sexist Magna Carta” because instead of using generic male language, it explicitly references male and female citizens (ciudadanos y ciudadanas). Most importantly, it contains groundbreaking guarantees for the social and economic rights of women in addition to political and legal equality of the sexes.

The constitution addresses sexual harassment and domestic violence, guarantees full equality between men and women in employment, and in Article 88, recognizes housework as an economically productive activity, thus entitling housewives to compensation and social security benefits.

In June of 2006, the poorest housewives began receiving payments of 80 percent of the minimum wage (which had just been raised 15 percent) for their work in the home, funds that come from oil revenues.

Chavez has said, “Women are the poorest, they work the hardest and they are the most committed to the revolution.”

Grassroots involvement

A major feature of the new Venezuela is the involvement of working-class people in the revolutionary changes taking place. And women are major players at this grassroots level. For example, the majority of the members of the committees overseeing decisions on land distribution, water and health care are women.

Linares talked about the dramatic impact that the initiatives of the Chavez government and the Bolivarian Revolution have had on women’s daily lives.

Among these are the “Missions,” social programs funded by oil revenues. The dozen or so Missions were developed to circumvent inertia and opposition in the existing government bureaucracies. They address everything from hunger, homelessness, poverty, unemployment and illiteracy to creating a loyal reserve in the military, performing sight-restoring operations, turning fallow land over to small farmers and increasing political participation of the Venezuelan people.

The Missions have made special efforts to incorporate women, especially in the educational projects, including bringing them into the universities in larger numbers — 70 percent of new students at that level are now women.

Co-ops, land reform

Other projects that directly benefit women are the community kitchens (Casas de Alimentacion) and the network of small, cooperatively run, low-priced grocery stores. About 1.5 million children now receive three free meals a day, 1.5 million people have been provided with safe drinking water, and there are food subsidies and vouchers for pregnant women and new mothers.

Nearly five million acres of land have been distributed to small farmers, with priority given to women-headed households, 60 percent of the total.

Community centers

An exciting new development in the economic and social landscape is community cooperatives — Nucleos de Desarrollo Endogenos. The N.D.E. Fabricio Ojeda, located in Caracas, is an example of the night-and-day changes that the Chavez government’s programs have made in people’s lives.

A mural-lined oasis in the midst of a neighborhood of extremely crowded, dilapidated housing, this N.D.E. includes a daycare center, children’s library, medical clinic complete with its own ambulance and (free) pharmacy, grocery store, vegetable garden, basketball courts and baseball field.

The center includes two small cooperatives, one that makes shoes and the other clothing, which provide jobs to many local people. Ground has just been broken for the construction of an elementary school, community dining hall and cultural center.

Women’s health

Women’s health, including reproductive health and education, is also a priority of the new government. With abortion still illegal in Venezuela, as in most of Latin America, the government recently initiated a discussion on the need to decriminalize the procedure. Incidentally, currently women are the ones prosecuted, not doctors.

Linares said that the women’s movement is working towards laws that would allow for abortions in cases of rape and when the woman’s health is threatened. She said that this limited step is very important and a matter of public health, with many women still being injured and dying from back-alley abortions.

Growing political savvy

Given all of this, it’s not surprising that the Venezuelan Communist Party puts special emphasis on work among women. Linares put it this way, “Women are the ones with the greatest political consciousness.”

In 2002, the CVP established its own mass women’s organization, the Organizacion Clara Zetkin, named after the German revolutionary. Interestingly, one of the party’s political priorities is to help organize women into the trade unions and bring them into union leadership. This is in keeping with the party’s work to build, “street by street,” popular participation in the political process.

In the past few years there has been a modest increase in the number of women in government, to about 30 percent of local, state and national posts, and Chavez recently declared the goal is to have women in 50 percent of all public posts.

Linares noted that there are still big challenges facing Venezuelan women — they “aren’t leading the process, they are the troops.”

“We still face a machista resistance, and even have to struggle with women themselves to take the lead,” she said.

The Communist Party of Venezuela has itself begun some internal educational campaigns around this issue too.

Elena Mora attended the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of Venezuela in July 2006.

Bush administration targets Cuban churches

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:11:00 +0000

Church leaders the world over have objected to a misleading reference to the Cuban Council of Churches that appeared in the July 10 report from the President Bush’s “Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.”

The report states that to “tighten regulations for the export of humanitarian items,” Washington plans to “ensure that exports are consigned to entities that support independent civil society and are not regime administered or controlled organizations, such as the Cuban Council of Churches.”

The Cuban Council of Churches has been coordinating church-based humanitarian aid in Cuba for 71 years. The Rev. Lucius Walker, director of the U.S. organization Pastors for Peace, told the World that the council is the oldest such group in Latin America and the most inclusive in the Western Hemisphere.

Council President Rhode González Zorilla, a pastor of the Christian Pentecostal Church and the first woman to hold the job, ascribed allegations of government control “to a deliberate disregard of the history of the work of Cuban churches and of the council itself.” She pointed out that “relations between the churches of Cuba and the United States are historical. Nothing will be able to keep us apart as churches.” Past council President Pablo Oden Marichel, an Episcopalian priest, accused the U.S. government of preparing to “kill the ecumenical movement in Cuba, one of the strongest in Latin America.”

The Cuban Council of Churches presently includes 23 Protestant and evangelical denominations plus three churches in observer roles, six “fraternally associated” groups (including Cuba’s Jewish community), and 12 other Christian and ecumenical formations viewed as “collaborators.”

The Rev. Samuel Kobia, secretary-general of the World Council of Churches in Geneva, characterized U.S. policies as “ a flagrant violation of religious liberty and an obvious interference in religious affairs.” He called upon the councils of churches of all nations to express solidarity with the Cuban council. Marti Shupack of the World Council added, “to disturb this activity — cooperation with Cuban churches — strikes at the heart of our religious identity. Religious liberty was a fundamental principle for the founders of the American republic.”

Church World Service (CWS) is the service arm of the U.S. National Council of Churches, representing 35 U.S. denominations. Executive Director Johan L. McCullough also characterized interference with his organization’s ability to provide basic humanitarian aid as an assault on religious liberty. He recalled that CWS has maintained relations with Cuban churches for 40 years and concluded, “We have no doubt that the Cuban Council of Churches is an authentic expression of Christianity.”

The council provides support and humanitarian aid to the elderly, the disabled, and victims of natural disasters. It also promotes community gardens and the use of renewable energy sources. Cuban church leaders say that help from U.S. religious groups has been crucial to this work.

Walker said Pastors for Peace has sent 3,000 tons of humanitarian aid to Cuba’s Ecumenical Distribution Committee. He suggested that in its report, the Bush administration is indirectly attacking his own organization for its assistance to the Cuban people.

Walker said he finds it contradictory that the U.S. government, after denying the existence of church life in revolutionary Cuba for many years, now acknowledges its reality through repression. Bush’s “inserting his own political hostility into Cuba’s religious affairs” may serve to solidify ties between the government there and Cuban churches, he said.