Much ado currently about a recent speech by PDVSA president Rafael Ramirez, in which he declared the "new PDVSA" to be "red from top to bottom," and furthermore urged those non-revolutionaries in the ranks to step aside and make room for a Bolivarian. The opposition promptly declared such statements unconstitutional and illegal electoral propaganda. While BBC declares this a "storm," it’s certainly contained within the teacup of the opposition.

Chavez responded, rightly, with exuberation: not only was Ramirez right, but he should "give the same speech 100 times a day." Moreover, all other state structures should also be "red from top to bottom."

What does it mean for PDVSA to be "red"? It means for it to serve the people. This is more than a mere political affiliation. Before the 2002 petroleum strike, during the course of which the entire industry was shut down for weeks, and as a result of which the government was able to dismiss 19,000 workers supporting the stoppage, PDVSA was out of the state’s control. It was, and is often referred to as "a state within a state."

It was only after 2002, when the government reasserted control over PDVSA, that the Bolivarian project could begin in earnest. And for simple reason: it didn’t have the money to do so before. Since then, PDVSA has been the central source of funding for the Bolivarian Missions.

So now, when we see Chavez spending wildly in the run-up to the election, declaring the newly-inaugurated train to Tuy and Metro Los Teques free for the rest of the year, and speeding up the process of Christmas bonuses, we are told that this smacks of the basest form of "populism." But what such claims forget is that prior to 2002, the Venezuelan government couldn’t spend money because it didn’t pertain to the State at all!

Hence "populism" as objectively good in this context.