PRI Fundamentalism – Process

Mexico, DF (Process) – I thank Professor John M. Ackerman for his relatively polite response. What I appreciate less is his history lesson. The fact is that (without the solemn official tone he uses) almost everything he says about Morelos, Zapata, the social significance of Articles 27 and 123 of the Constitution, is discussed in Siglo de Caudillos y Biografía del Poder, where I also discuss the view of oil expropriation as not only an economic imperative but also a moral imperative. It is not history that divides us, but the meaning of history in the present. He believes that all the keys to our future lie in our past. I believe that our past contains lasting lessons (especially in the social field), but I absolutely do not believe that in the 21st century all the answers to our great national problems are in the original text of a Constitution that has been revised and amended countless times. What Ackerman talks about is not artificial legislation, but a sacred code that cannot be touched. Based on this historical essentialism, Ackerman believes in more: he believes in Mexican exceptionalism, as if the economic practices of the entire world do not apply in principle to our very special country. On the other hand, I believe that Mexico, despite its peculiarities, can and must adapt to the economic realities of the 21st century (which are very different from those of the 1930s) and remain competitive without failing or getting lost along the way. Neither Ackerman nor I are oil experts, but on this topic your text seems to indicate that I am bent on “pinning my hopes” on “Halliburton and ExxonMobil”. On the other hand, he is a bulwark of “the global business community’s attack on the welfare state and the remnants of real existing socialism”. I don’t know what those “remnants of real existing socialism” Ackerman promotes, but I know that I have never written a verse against the welfare state. If I support private participation in the energy sector in principle, it is not because of a dogmatic belief in the market, but because I believe that mixed participation (like Brazil or Norway) is better for the country. My rational insistence on energy reform is neither theoretical nor absolute. Not to mention because of a so-called loyalty to the PRI, a party I fought for for thirty years but whose return to power I publicly regret. My opposition to reform is first and foremost due to the fear of a repetition of López Portillo’s oil frenzy. This is the meaning of the series of critical questions I raised in the article, which Ackerman decided not to read because they did not fit his “neoliberal” characterization of my ideas. But the questions I raised still remain, and I still think they provide a good platform for criticism from the opposition. In fact, I think that the reform would open up another promising possibility for the left: to put one of its advocates (Lázaro Cárdenas Battelle, Marcelo Ebrard, Javier Jiménez Espriu) at the head of Pemex to show that the company (by the dictatorship of the state) can then achieve the necessary managerial autonomy and financial flexibility through effective and honest management. The fragment of the analysis was published in the 1927 edition of the magazine Proceso, which is currently in circulation.