[Marxism] Vzln oil minister - "No single PdVSA institution can do without a socialist workers' committee,

[S. Artesian]

I read Ramirez's article in Links, and essentially his arguments, IMO, are the attempt to come to grips with the weakness of the domestic bourgeoisie brought about by the legacy of colonialism and the oppression of the indigenous peoples AND the intrusion of the advanced capitalist countries establishing  enclaves, concessions, of advanced capitalist production within the overall framework of "undevelopment."

Ramirez then concludes that the critical struggle is for the state to act as the agent of socialist construction.  I think it's easy to see that Ramirez's argument reproduces from the left the inverted history of the bourgeoisie in parts  of Latin America-- where in the advanced countries, it was the bourgeoisie's wealth that gave them power and access to power, in the "less capitalist developed" countries, it was access to power that allowed the bourgeoisie to accumulate wealth.  Thus the state becomes the mechanism for development of the domestic bourgeoisie, with the military acting as a proxy, bound hand and foot, to international capitalism.  [In Bolivia there was the anomaly of enclave capitalism where the enclave, the mines, were controlled by the domestic bourgeoisie].  

In the left version, the state becomes the generator of socialism.

This argument holds that the workers in the industries of enclave capitalism are privileged and made conservators of the system in their privilege.  I'm sure everyone can see the parallel to the argument often made that the workers of the advanced countries, by virture of their privilege, have also been integrated into the status quo.

But here's the problem, the state as such never exists in isolation, separate and apart from the impact, demands, needs of international capitalism, from the world markets.  Didn't exist that way in Mexico, before or after the revolution.  Doesn't exist that way now in Venezuela, Bolivia.  So if capitalism has succeeded in integrating, or in the case of Bolivia completely fragmenting the proletariat, there is not going to be any successful socialism, not of the 20th, 21st, or 22nd century type, the world market will see to that though diminishing revenues or "rents."

If socialist accumulation in the "less developed" counties can succeed with workers either integrated, incidental,  or atomized, then capitalist accumulation can continue with the workers so integrated, incidental and atomized and there is no reason to think that the "state socialism" will be any more successful in resolving the lack of economic integration between city and countryside, diversifying the economy away from the monopoly rent stream than any of the preceding governments.