As the study of Third World politics and development moves away from structuralism and toward the empirical study of social subjects, there is a need for a new theoretical framework to aggregate and interpret such studies. This article employs a postimperialist class-analytical framework and insights drawn from “discourse theory” to examine FEDECAMARAS, the “peak organization” of the Venezuelan business sector. In its examination of FEDECAMARAS's ideologically driven but also self-interested confrontation with the state over the association's demand for a retreat from statism-dirigism, the article demonstrates the utility of conceiving such activity as the action of a bourgeois social movement. Because the social movement under discussion aims at a democratizing transformation of the Venezuelan political order, it is progressive regardless of the motivations of its protagonist. Although additional research is required for verification, it appears that the ability of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie to mount such a movement is (as postimperialism anticipates) an outgrowth of its association with international capital.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, D. G. (1983). The new bourgeoisie and the limits of dependency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Becker, D. G. , & Sklar, R. L. (1987). Why postimperialism? In D. G. Bcker, J. Frieden, S. P. Schatz, & R. L. Sklar, Postimperialism: International capitalism and development in the late twentieth century (pp. 1-18). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
3.
Berle, A. A., Jr. (1954). The twentieth century capitalist revolution. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
4.
Berle, A. A., Jr. (1959). Power without property. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
5.
Block, F. (1980). Beyond relative autonomy: State managers as historical subjects. In R. Miliband & J. Savile (Eds.), The socialist register 1980 (pp. 227-242). London: Merlin Press.
6.
Block, F. (1987). Revising state theory: Essays in politics and postindustrialism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
7.
Bond, R. D. (1975). Business associations and interest politics in Venezuela: The FEDECAMARAS and the determination of national economic policies. Ph. D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
8.
Bond, R. D. (1987). Comment on FEDECAMARAS and policy-making in Venezuela. Latin American Research Review, 22(3), 107-110.
9.
Booth, D. (1985). Marxism and development sociology: Interpreting the impasse. World Development, 13(7), 761-787.
10.
Brewer, A. (1980). Marxist theories of imperialism: A critical survey. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
11.
Cardoso, F. H. (1977). The consumption of dependency theory in the United States. Latin American Research Review, 12(3), 7-24.
12.
Cardoso, F. H. (1986). Entrepreneurs and the transition process: The Brazilian case. In G. O'Donnell, P. C. Schmitter, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transitions from authoritarian rule: Comparative perspectives (pp. 137-153). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
13.
Cardoso, F. H. , & Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Durand, F. (1984). Los industriales, el liberalismo y la democracia. Lima: Fundación Friedrich Ebert and DESCO.
15.
FEDECAMARAS . (1960). Documentos de interés económico general, 1959-1960. Caracas: Author.
16.
FEDECAMARAS . (1961). Principales documentos, 1960-1961. Caracas: Author.
17.
FEDECAMARAS . (1973). Aspectos fundamentales de la doctrina económica de FEDECAMARAS. Caracas: Author.
18.
FEDECAMARAS . (1980). Carta de Maracaibo: Tesis de los sectores empresariales de Venezuela sobre el desarrollo económico y social. Caracas: Author.
19.
FEDECAMARAS . (1984). Estrategia para el desarrollo: Principios, doctrinas y lineamientos básicos. Document approved by the Extraordinary Assembly held in Caracas, January 22-23 (mimeographed).
20.
Femia, J. V. (1981). Gramsci's political thought: Hegemony, consciousness, and the revolutionary process. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.
21.
Frieden, J. (1981). Third world indebted industrialization: International finance and state capitalism in Mexico, Brazil, Algeria, and South Korea. International Organization, 35(3), 407-431.
22.
Gil Yepes, J. A. (1978). El reto de las élites (2nd ed.). Madrid: Editorial Tecnos.
23.
Gómez, L. (1986). Los movimientos sociales: Democracia emergente en el sistema político venezolano. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Venezuela Approaching the Year 2000, Caracas, November 24-27.
24.
Gramsci, A. (1957). The southern question. In A. Gramsci, The modern prince and other writings (pp. 28-51). New York: International Publishers.
25.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
26.
Harris, N. (1986). The end of the Third World: Newly industrializing countries and the decline of an ideology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
27.
Inter-American Development Bank . (1988). Economic and social progress in Latin America: 1988 report. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
Jordan, B. (1985). The state: Authority and autonomy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
29.
Karl, T. L. (1987). Petroleum and political pacts: The transition to democracy in Venezuela. Latin American Research Review, 22(1), 63-94.
30.
Laclau, E. , & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. London: Verso.
31.
Laclau, E. , & Mouffe, C. (1987). Post-Marxism without apologies. New Left Review, issue 166, 79-106.
32.
Lenin, V. I. (1929). What is to be done? Burning questions of our movement. New York: International Publishers.
33.
López Maya, M. , & Gómez Calcaño, L. (1985). Desarrollo y hegemonía en la sociedad venezolana: 1958 a 1985. Mimeographed. Caracas: UCV-CENDES.
34.
Miller, R. W. (1984). Analyzing Marx: Morality, power and history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Mouffe, C. (1979). Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), Gramsci and Marxist theory (pp. 168-204). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
36.
Naím, M. (1986). La empresa privada en Venezuela: ¿qué pasa cuando se crece en medio de la riqueza y la confusión? In M. Naím & R. Piñango (Eds.), El caso venezolano: Una ilusión de armonía (3rd ed.; pp. 152-182) Caracas: Ediciones IESA.
37.
Número (Caracas) (1986, 30 November). El gobierno en la búsqueda de acuerdos, pp. 26-27.
38.
O'Donnell, G. (1986). Introduction to the Latin American cases. In G. O'Donnell, P. C. Schmitter, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transitions from authoritarian rule: Latin America (pp. 3-18). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
Palma, G. (1978) Dependency: A formal theory of underdevelopment or a methodology for the analysis of concrete situations of underdevelopment?World Development, 6(7-8), 881-924.
40.
Salazar-Carrillo, J. (1986). Industrialization and development in Venezuela. Latin American Research Review, 21(3), 257-266.
41.
Salgado, R. L. (1987). Economic pressure groups and policy-making in Venezuela: The case of FEDECAMARAS reconsidered. Latin American Research Review, 22(3), 91-105.
42.
Sklar, R. L. (1976). Postimperialism: A class analysis of multinational corporate expansion. Comparative Politics, 9(1), 75-92.
43.
Sklar, R. L. (1987). Developmental democracy. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 29(4), 686-714.
44.
Sklar, M. J. (1988). The corporate reconstruction of American capitalism, 1890-1916: The market, the law, and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Sonntag, H. R. , & de la Cruz, R. (1981). Estado e industrialización en Venezuela. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 43(2), 905-939.
46.
Stander, H. J., III , & Becker, D. G. (in press). Postimperialism revisted: The Venezuelan wheat import controversy of 1986. World Development18(2).
