Re: (OPE-L) Re: Paresh Chattopadhyay 'Capital, The Progenitor of Socialism'

From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Dec 30 2003 - 16:57:08 EST

Dear Rakesh,

Indeed the articles try not only to show the machinations of imperialism,
the comprador bourgeoisie etc but the real dificulties that the government
has is managing a capitalist economy, and imdeed the welcoming of foreign
investment by it.
Nowhere is the ' idea that OPEC, with the coopration of Chavez,
set the price of oil' to be found in an absolute form. However we know that
US has always attempted to destroy any   rentier arrangement....there has
always been a battle between Rent and Profit  over surplus value.
I do not know what you mean by the phrase that discussing such a battle
' is simply simple-minded and wrong', it is an historical reality.

As far as your 18,000 'workers' are concerned they were nothing more than
the wealthy, high paid managers, saboteurs ( workers were actually killed by
the Chamber of Commerce gang when trying to work, and active sabotage
of equipment took place), plus the labour aristocrats etc...
There is a split in the working class  created by imperialism and this has
be understood....otherwise you'll soon be weeping sympathetically over
the activities of the AFL-CIO!

Paul Bullock.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: (OPE-L) Re: Paresh Chattopadhyay 'Capital, The Progenitor of

> >Paul B wrote:
> >
> >>  It is very important that exchanges are based on facts as you are
aware. I
> >>  attach 3 articles on Venezuela, 1 written a week after the defeated
> >>  attempt against the Chavez Government, and anothers following the
> >>  subsequent
> >>  at the 'economic' coup attempt - the lock out - . Since you often send
> >>  useful articles I hope you'll enjoy these. They are in Corel Word
> >
> >For those who don't have Corel Perfect (such as myself), I think one of
> >articles that you included as an attachment is at:
> >
> >
> >
> >Not all exchanges are based on facts and, in any event, 'facts' are
> >sometimes difficult to determine,  BUT  when there are two sets of
> >contradictory 'facts' being put forward -- one by the bourgeois press,
> >local reactionaries (gusanos) and representatives of imperialist
> >and another set being put forward by the representatives of millions
> >of poor working people in struggle against imperialism  and by
> >independent progressive observers from other nations -- then the decision
> >about which account to accept shouldn't be all that difficult for
> >revolutionaries.
> There is not a lot of conflict about the facts. Chavez raised
> royalties and insisted on minority foreign ownership of some upstream
> operations. But this article does not deny that what he took he also
> gave back to foreign investors and foreign oil companies. They got
> more control of downstream operations along with all kinds of tax
> breaks and incentives. Nor do these articles deny that the state oil
> company is exporting an ever smaller percentage of the oil.
> I also think the whole idea that OPEC, with the coopration of Chavez,
> can set the price of oil is simply simple-minded and wrong. While NYT
> reporters now understand this, it is not propaganda from the
> imperialist press. To the extent that the revolutionary press repeats
> this myth, it is simply wrong.
> We still do not have a good account of the status of labor rights
> under Chavez. We do know that he fired 18,000 workers (!)in name of
> their all being stooges of the imperialists.
> Rakesh
> >
> >Despite questions which I raised before, I want to emphasize that we
> >are fundamentally in agreement on the nature of the struggle in
> >
> >In solidarity, Jerry
> Yes, I dissent.
> Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EST