Chavez Ratifies Sovereign Use of International Reserves

Caracas, Aug 18 (Prensa Latina) President Hugo Chavez reaffirmed Thursday that Venezuela will use its international reserves according to the country’s interests, without subordinating itself to foreign powers or institutions. In a second article for his column “Notes from the Rear Guard” in the Orinoco Mail newspaper, Chavez decried what he called a campaign to create confusion and destabilization by using the issue of reserves.

Based on that, he called on Venezuelans to study economy, as a way of boosting the building of socialism, and not to fall into the trap of enemies of the process of change that began in 1999.

Opposition sectors and representatives of U.S. right-wing forces like Roger Noriega, former undersecretary of state, are questioning the Venezuelan government’s decision to diversify the placement of its financial resources, based on the crisis in the United States and Europe.

Ten years ago, Venezuela had less than 10 billion USD dollars while the total now available in the Central Bank is about 30 billion, Chavez said.

Venezuela’s reserves were previously in the hands of the notorious International Monetary Fund, he added.

On Wednesday, Chavez announced that Venezuela would bring home its gold deposits, worth some 11 billion USD, and diversify where it keeps its foreign currency reserves.

Venezuelan reserves may be moved to banks in Brazil, China and Russia, because of the financial crisis affecting the United States and Europe, where it now has billions in reserve funds.

One response to “Chavez Ratifies Sovereign Use of International Reserves

  1. „Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced plans to nationalize the gold mines in the country…“, inform mass media (August 19, 2011). Nothing should surprise us! It is just unfortunate that nationalization has become a symbol for socialism in Venezuela. ,,But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism“, says Engels is his work ,,Anti-Duhring“.

    But Chavez’s government distributes revenues from these nationalized economic sectors so that allows poorer Venezuelans cheaper education, health care, housing etc.., would answer us the supporters of President Chavez! But in that case, there is socialism in the capitalist countries, for example, Hong Kong, where 60 percent of the people lived in subsidized housing, mostly rented cheaply from the government. Hong Kong people have also enjoyed almost free medical treatment at government clinics and hospitals. Likewise, education, at least up to the secondary level has long been almost entirely funded by the government. Then, in what does differ the nationalization of „private goods“ in Venezuela than the public goods of the government of Hong Kong? In anything! Then, what is that thing which connects these two countries from the socio-economic point of view? Commodity production! In both countries there is issued money, and Marx teaches in his master-piece „Capital“ that money is a consequence of a social relationship, the existence of private property, behind which hides the distribution of social labor by the will of the one that currently has the highest purchasing power. In Caracas the government bureaucracy from the ranks of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela works so that it accelerates this case. So, until Chavez did not abolish money, i.e. capital as a social relationship, then in my eyes he will remain as an anti-socialist, anti-revolutionary.

    Chavez has put much of the Venezuelan economy under state control … What means Chavez has set the state against the workers as a collective capitalist. Engels would comment on the nationalizations of Chavez in this way: ,,The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers…“ (Anti-Duhring). The exploitive mechanisms – the use of indirect taxation, such as turnover or value added taxes – will do the job. ,,Money itself is a commodity, an external object, capable of becoming the private property of“* Bolivarian state! ,,Thus social power becomes the private power of private persons“** like the bureaucrats in the Bolivarian government of Chavez.

    „We’ll nationalize the gold…“ exclaims Chavez. But by means of this state interventionism, Chavez actually wants „to hold and store up exchange-value in the shape of a particular commodity“***, hence his passion for gold.

    The fact that Chavez is expected to get a second loan from Russia worth $ 4 billion in order to continue the modernization of the armed forces, is telling us not to expect this statesman to be a socialist. Rather, Chavez as consistent revolutionary socialist should conduct a general arming of the people. ,,In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep“ was one of Demands of the Communist party in Germany (Marx and Engels, 1848).

    Top of unprincipled behavior of Chavez is sending his special representative in Tunisia, which has prompted speculation that Gaddafi might go into exile in Venezuela. It is „revolutionary“ who 40 years ago in his ,,Green book“ wrote that the workers are still wages earners versus state ownership of means of production.

    ,,The workers’ relationship to the owner or the productive establishment, and to their own interests, is similar under all prevailing conditions in the world today, regardless of whether ownership is right or left. In both instances, the producers are wage-earners, despite the difference in ownership. Thus, this change in ownership has not solved the problem of the producer’s right to benefit directly from what he produces, and not through the society nor through wages. The proof thereof is the fact that producers are still wage-earners despite the change in this state of ownership. The ultimate solution lies in abolishing the wage-system“.

    40 years have passed, but Gadhafi did not justify its rendezvous with the revolution. Not only through commodity production, that has its own laws of private appropriation, heaped in his pocket $ 70 billion (seventy billion dollars!), but also permitted a privatization of more than 100 companies since 2003 in industries including oil refining, tourism and real estate, of which 29 are 100 percent foreign owned.

    Here’s what „revolutionary“ and in essence idler, President Chavez wants to save from an inevitable political suicide! Unfortunately, Venezuelan workers are very dizzy from the frequent nationalization so they cannot realize to whom their “dear leader” hands hand. An old reactionary’s hand. These two guys surely will do amazing work together with 70 billion dollars. And then they can find out a plan for national salvation of the Venezuelan economy.

    *Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I.
    **Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I.
    ***Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s