toni solo and Jorge Capelán discuss events in Brazil and the Nicaraguan right wing's failed efforts to manipulate recent protests by elderly retired people about Social Security benefits.
Click to listen
fredag 28 juni 2013
måndag 24 juni 2013
Vad händer i Brasilien?
Av Jorge Capelán, Riktpunkt.nu
Den västerländska mediebevakningen om vad som händer i Brasilien är förkastlig. Som i fallet Libyen har imperiets maskineri för hjärntvätt och psykologisk krigföring lyckats påverka hela det politiska spektrumet – inklusive tongivande medier inom det som brukar kallas för vänster.
Det som händer i det sydamerikanska landet är allt annat än en ”revolution underifrån”, och det är inte heller något folkligt uppror mot arbetarpartiet PT:s politik utan en rörelse som tillfälligt har kapats av en aggressiv of fascistisk höger med stöd från delar av medelklassen och imperiet.
Om man googlar runt lite och tittar på bilderna från demonstrationerna de senaste dagarna märker man genast att merparten av alla demonstranter som visas är vita i ett land där 52 % av befolkningen är svart – och där de flesta svarta är fattiga.
De senaste 10 åren har de svarta ökat sin medelinkomst med 43.9% medan de vita (varav merparten tillhör medel- och överklassen) har ökat sin medelinkomst med 19.8%. Detta beror på en massiv omfördelning av resurserna som både Lula och Dilma har åstadkommit.
Omkring 20-25% av brasilianerna har lyfts ut ur fattigdomen. Det är inte dessa människor som demonstrerar mot regeringen.
De som romantiserar de senaste dagarnas protester som en ”sann” revolt underifrån mot en till ytan progressiv men i själva verket nyliberal regering har en rad saker att förklara: Vad är revolutionärt och progressivt i att skandera att ”ett enat Brasilien behöver inga politiska partier”?
Hur kan man betrakta en regering som nyliberal vilka ökar de fattigas inkomster och lyfter dessa ut ur fattigdomen, en regering som visar att det är fördelningspolitiken som möjliggör tillväxten, samt att man både kan utvidga den inre marknaden via ökad folklig konsumtion och samtidigt öka exporten?
Inledningsvis hade protesterna en helt annan inriktning, de var små (som mest 3 000 personer) och Sao Paulos militariserade polis mötte dem med övervåld. Polisen gjorde det på order av borgmästaren Geraldo Alckmin som tillhör högerpartiet PSDB (formellt socialdemokratiskt, nyliberalt i praktiken). Medierna (som i Brasilien är fräna motståndare till regeringen) svartmålade protesterna och hyllade polisen.
MPL-rörelsen eller ”Movimiento Passe Livre”, som startade protesterna mot planerna på att höja biljetterna i kollektivtrafiken i Sao Paulo, är ett slags motsvarighet till Planka.nu i Sverige. Den stöds av många vänstermänniskor ur alla schatteringar, inklusive av många PT-anhängare. PT har självt avgiftsfri kollektivtrafik i sitt program! I MPL fanns grupper som var emot all partipolitik överhuvud taget, men de var inte i majoritet och inte heller skulle de slåss med andra vänstermänniskor om en partibanderoll. Programmen mot vänsteraktivisterna i demonstrationerna startade senare.
Det som hände i Sao Paulo, där det hela började, var följande:
- Den 10 juni, MPL samlar jättemycket folk till en demonstration, enligt uppgifter ca 5 000 personer. Den militariserade polisen slår till på ett brutalt sätt. Många människor över hela landet blir jätteupprörda. Tidningarna fortsätter med sin kriminaliserande retorik.
– Till nästa massmöte, den 13 juni, kommer det hela 20 000 personer till demonstrationen. Över 70 demonstranter grips av den militariserade polisen med motiveringen att de hade flaskor med vinäger för att skydda sig mot tårgasen. Många människor skadades och det hela sändes live av de stora privata tevekanalerna.
– Helgen till den 15 och 16 juni ägde flera våldsamma demonstrationer rum, främst i Belo Horizonte, Brasilia och Rio de Janeiro.
– På måndagen den 17 juni, vände samma högertidningar om och började istället uppmana folk att gå ut och demonstrera utan politiska fanor, enbart med den brasilianska flaggan. Dessa som tidigare hade kritiserat demonstranterna och hyllat polisens våldsamma ingripande. ”Ett enat Brasilien behöver inga partier”, löd (den klart fascistiska) parollen.
Ända sedan dess har stämningen ändrats radikalt i demonstrationerna. Alltför mycket viftande med den brasilianska flaggan utanför fotbollssammanhang betraktas allmänt i landet som högervridet – ja, rentav fascistiskt. En rekordsiffra på 65 000 deltog (inte 200-300 000 som det påstås). Trots att de gamla parollerna fortfarande hördes, överröstades dessa av andra, nya paroller såsom: ”sänk skatterna”, ”VM kostar för mycket”, ”ner med korruptionen”, och ”ner med utsugningen av medelklassen”. Protestens sociala sammansättning samt dess innehåll hade ändrats.
Medan MPL krävde fri kollektivtransport, bättre utbildning och bättre hälsovård, pratade den kapade rörelsen enbart om ”korruption – inte om de privata intressenas korruption, naturligtvis, och inte heller om mediemogulernas korruption. Fascistiska grupper av skinheads och andra våldsamma element dök upp på demonstrationerna och hotade med våld mot alla vänsteraktivister son bekände sig som sådana. Många blev misshandlade, inte bara i Sao Paulo, utan på många andra ställen. Inga banker eller andra kapitalistiska symboler attackerades, däremot offentliga byggnader och PT:s partilokaler samt andra vänsterorganisationers lokaler förstördes.
Det finns många vittnesmål om att polisen på många håll lät de våldsamma grupperna agera ostört utan att ingripa. Det finns också vittnesmål om att grupper av oidentifierade individer brände ner saker på öppen gata på platser som inte hade någon anknytning till demonstrationerna, förmodligen med syftet att konstruera ett scenario av kaos.
De flesta som har deltagit i demonstrationerna håller inte med högeragendan, men det är först nu de börjar inse att rörelsen har bojkottats.
Detta destabiliseringsförsök kommer inte att lyckas övergå i en ren statskupp pga. de som kapar dess ledning inte har någon politik alls.
Det handlar om grupper i Brasilien som är alltför beroende av USA och Europa och den enda politik de kan erbjuda är just den politik som det brasilianska folket inte vill ha, nämligen nyliberalismen.
Än så länge har president Dilma Rousseff försvarat demonstranternas rätt att peka på bristerna i den brasilianska demokratin samt att diskutera hur en ny politik kan utformas. PT har klart och tydligt fördömt polisens våld mot demonstranterna samtidigt som de isolerade våldshandlingarna påbörjats av de fascistiska infiltreringsgrupperna.
I fredags samlades 76 vänsterorganisationer, inklusive politiska partier, fackföreningar och sociala rörelser i Sao Paulo, för att utbyta analyser om vad som hade hänt. Grupperna, som samlar praktiskt taget hela spektret av landets vänster, inklusive partier som befinner sig i opposition till PT, beslutade om att bilda en gemensam front mot det fascistiska våldet samt att verka tillsammans för att rörelsens ursprungliga paroller återupptas. Liknande möten har hållits på många andra ställen i Brasilien denna helg.
MPL ställde tillfälligt in demonstrationerna när det stod klart att de hade kapats av fascister. Nu återupptas dessa igen, inte som opposition mot regeringen utan som ett fredligt sätt att fördjupa regeringens sociala målsättningar.
Att västerländska medier har gjort en så stor sak av demonstrationerna i landet beror på att Brasilien har befäst sin ställning som världens sjätte största ekonomi och dess utkom håller i sin hand nyckeln till Latinamerikas rörelse för självständighet gentemot Väst.
USA och dess europeiska allierade har ett klart intresse av att de krafter som utlösts i samband med demonstrationerna används med syftet att hindra Brasilien från att spela en avgörande roll i byggandet av den gryende multipolära världsordningen.
Jag menar inte att CIA ursprungligen ligger bakom protesterna, men det är högst troligt att NATO:s strateger för psykologisk krigföring har på olika sätt bidragit till försöket att bojkotta proteströrelsen.
Som av en ren händelse, förra veckan annonserades Obamas kandidat till ny USA-ambassadör i Brasilien. Hon heter Liliana Ayalde, och var stationerad i Asuncion, Paraguay, under ”expresskuppen” i fjor varpå den paraguayanska oligarkin avsatte president Fernando Lugo.
Protesterna kan bli ett tillfälle att befästa den sydamerikanska jättens befrielse från den nyliberala politiken, men de skulle också kunna leda till nya destabiliserande incidenter som så småningom skulle kunna kompromettera Latinamerikas process av integration och självbestämmande.
Än så länge har president Dilma Rousseff och hennes allierade på vänsterkanten hanterat situationen med visdom, försiktighet och politisk intelligens. Låt oss hoppas att hon, PT och dess allierade lyckas, eftersom Latinamerika behöver ett starkt Brasilien.
Jorge Capelán
söndag 23 juni 2013
NICARAGUA: Right wing politicians and ex-Sandinistas manipulate pensioners legitimate claim
Jorge Capelan and toni solo, June 23rd 2013
Tortilla con Sal.
The reactionary rich country elites are at once sinister, cynical, predictable and banal. Their various regional expressions in Asia, Africa or Latin America all apply exactly the same destabilizing tactics in every country. The vogue these days is political mimicry:
The apparent spontaneity of the pensioners' action is belied by the fact that their nationwide mobilization requires tens of thousands of dollars to fund transport, accommodation and food. Very clearly that funding comes not from the self-confessed impoverished pensioners but from the right wing groups that are so blatantly manipulating them. As has happened so often elsewhere, the cynical anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua have abused graphic images from other countries in support of false accusations of violence and repression by the government here.
This tactic has been used flagrantly by corporate media for as long as anyone can remember to smear target governments everywhere. The latest example here in Nicaragua is of the right wing Chamorro family owned newspaper Hoy. On the Internet, they deceitfully used a photograph of an elderly woman beaten up up the Colombian security forces to suggest non-existent violence by Nicaraguan police against vulnerable elderly citizens.
The background to the pensioners protest action is that some 45.000 people of retirement age in Nicaragua have insufficient contributions to the system to receive the full pension. The government accepts their argument that they are entitled to a reduced pension based proportionately on their lifetime contributions. No one questions their right to a minimum pension - which also is established in the law - the problem is that the pension fund cannot meet their demand without collapsing.
A large part of their contributions have vanished into thin air. People working prior to 1979 have suffered because the dictator Anastasio Somoza stole their money when he fled Nicaragua during the revolution back in 1979. Between 1990 and 2006, pensioners lost out because their contributions were squandered by the Liberal governments in power during that period. In fact, one of the first actions of the Violeta Chamorro government was to abolish by decree the provision for a reduced pension.
Subsequently, Violeta Chamorro and her parliamentary allies reformed the Constitution to so as to strip the President of the power to modify the Social Security law. Now, many of the same people responsible for that change falsely accuse President Ortega of failing to act to assist the legitimate demands of retired people who would qualify for a reduced pension. These are the same right wing politicians who argue that the system needs to be reformed, which is code for reducing benefits, because it is under funded.
In fact, since 2007, the Sandinista government led by President Daniel Ortega has practically doubled the number of affiliated workers to 674.000 and dramatically increased the number of registered employers to almost 26.000. The size of the contributions has also increased considerably. But the system still cannot afford to give the pensionless seniors what they have contributed in the past, amounting on some estimates to about 2.3 billion cordobas. The pension fund would go bankrupt!
The only solution to the problem is to increase the base of contributors to the system by expanding the number of people in formal employment contributing to the social security fund. About 70% of Nicaragua's workers are not part of the system because neoliberal policies deliberately promoted an informal free market economy with strong disincentives for creating fully-insured jobs. It is that structural neoliberalism the Sandinista government inherited in 2007 and which it has substantially changed while at the same time constantly emphasizing medium and long term sustainability.
For that reason, the government has been negotiating with the pensioners organizations during all these years. About 8.000 of them receive the Government's solidarity bonus of about 45 dollars each month, and some 200.000 food packages have been delivered. Older people benefit especially from the government's improvements to the health system and initiatives like Misión Milagro which overwhelmingly serve older people who have problems with their vision.
Right-wing politicians, the network of toxic NGOs of the so-called "civil society" plus CIA-trained groups of middle class youths have fooled some of the seniors into believing that the state must pay them regardless of the effect on the other programs that benefit them such as the generously subsidized public transport, water and electricity services or free health care.
Last week, a hundred or so pensioners "occupied" the Social Security building. They promptly were surrounded by the police which already knew what the right-wing instigators had in mind. None of the elderly people were touched, not even with the petal of a rose, and they were offered help to leave the premises. Furthermore, bus transportation already had been ordered, as well as medical check-ups, food and so on.
Faced with the failure of their plan to provoke police violence, hundreds of right-wing activists tried to join the occupation and attempted to break through the the barrier of unarmed policemen who for several hours had to patiently stand facing the right-wingers insults, blows, stones and bottles. Six policemen were seriously injured. The right-wing TV, the newspaper La Prensa and the Corporacion radio station broadcast the "event" live all day.
Now phony progressives, ex-Sandinistas and their right wing allies make absurdly false accusations that the FSLN authorities have attacked peaceful demonstrating senior citizens. On Monday, the Sandinistas will flood the streets of Managua in order to set the record straight and remind the opposition that no "Nicaraguan right-wing Spring" will take place here. Thanks to the Sandinista government, in Nicaragua, the Spring started years ago when President Daniel Ortega took office in January 2007.
Tortilla con Sal.
The reactionary rich country elites are at once sinister, cynical, predictable and banal. Their various regional expressions in Asia, Africa or Latin America all apply exactly the same destabilizing tactics in every country. The vogue these days is political mimicry:
- take over a movement with more or less legitimate demands,
- make those demands impossible to meet (make sure to get the help of ultra-leftist and other extremist useful idiots to do that)
- then try to turn that struggle into a plebiscite about the progressive or radical government target of destabilization
- if possible, foment extremely violent polarization so as to provoke civil unrest or even war.
The apparent spontaneity of the pensioners' action is belied by the fact that their nationwide mobilization requires tens of thousands of dollars to fund transport, accommodation and food. Very clearly that funding comes not from the self-confessed impoverished pensioners but from the right wing groups that are so blatantly manipulating them. As has happened so often elsewhere, the cynical anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua have abused graphic images from other countries in support of false accusations of violence and repression by the government here.
This tactic has been used flagrantly by corporate media for as long as anyone can remember to smear target governments everywhere. The latest example here in Nicaragua is of the right wing Chamorro family owned newspaper Hoy. On the Internet, they deceitfully used a photograph of an elderly woman beaten up up the Colombian security forces to suggest non-existent violence by Nicaraguan police against vulnerable elderly citizens.
The background to the pensioners protest action is that some 45.000 people of retirement age in Nicaragua have insufficient contributions to the system to receive the full pension. The government accepts their argument that they are entitled to a reduced pension based proportionately on their lifetime contributions. No one questions their right to a minimum pension - which also is established in the law - the problem is that the pension fund cannot meet their demand without collapsing.
A large part of their contributions have vanished into thin air. People working prior to 1979 have suffered because the dictator Anastasio Somoza stole their money when he fled Nicaragua during the revolution back in 1979. Between 1990 and 2006, pensioners lost out because their contributions were squandered by the Liberal governments in power during that period. In fact, one of the first actions of the Violeta Chamorro government was to abolish by decree the provision for a reduced pension.
Subsequently, Violeta Chamorro and her parliamentary allies reformed the Constitution to so as to strip the President of the power to modify the Social Security law. Now, many of the same people responsible for that change falsely accuse President Ortega of failing to act to assist the legitimate demands of retired people who would qualify for a reduced pension. These are the same right wing politicians who argue that the system needs to be reformed, which is code for reducing benefits, because it is under funded.
In fact, since 2007, the Sandinista government led by President Daniel Ortega has practically doubled the number of affiliated workers to 674.000 and dramatically increased the number of registered employers to almost 26.000. The size of the contributions has also increased considerably. But the system still cannot afford to give the pensionless seniors what they have contributed in the past, amounting on some estimates to about 2.3 billion cordobas. The pension fund would go bankrupt!
The only solution to the problem is to increase the base of contributors to the system by expanding the number of people in formal employment contributing to the social security fund. About 70% of Nicaragua's workers are not part of the system because neoliberal policies deliberately promoted an informal free market economy with strong disincentives for creating fully-insured jobs. It is that structural neoliberalism the Sandinista government inherited in 2007 and which it has substantially changed while at the same time constantly emphasizing medium and long term sustainability.
For that reason, the government has been negotiating with the pensioners organizations during all these years. About 8.000 of them receive the Government's solidarity bonus of about 45 dollars each month, and some 200.000 food packages have been delivered. Older people benefit especially from the government's improvements to the health system and initiatives like Misión Milagro which overwhelmingly serve older people who have problems with their vision.
Right-wing politicians, the network of toxic NGOs of the so-called "civil society" plus CIA-trained groups of middle class youths have fooled some of the seniors into believing that the state must pay them regardless of the effect on the other programs that benefit them such as the generously subsidized public transport, water and electricity services or free health care.
Last week, a hundred or so pensioners "occupied" the Social Security building. They promptly were surrounded by the police which already knew what the right-wing instigators had in mind. None of the elderly people were touched, not even with the petal of a rose, and they were offered help to leave the premises. Furthermore, bus transportation already had been ordered, as well as medical check-ups, food and so on.
Faced with the failure of their plan to provoke police violence, hundreds of right-wing activists tried to join the occupation and attempted to break through the the barrier of unarmed policemen who for several hours had to patiently stand facing the right-wingers insults, blows, stones and bottles. Six policemen were seriously injured. The right-wing TV, the newspaper La Prensa and the Corporacion radio station broadcast the "event" live all day.
Now phony progressives, ex-Sandinistas and their right wing allies make absurdly false accusations that the FSLN authorities have attacked peaceful demonstrating senior citizens. On Monday, the Sandinistas will flood the streets of Managua in order to set the record straight and remind the opposition that no "Nicaraguan right-wing Spring" will take place here. Thanks to the Sandinista government, in Nicaragua, the Spring started years ago when President Daniel Ortega took office in January 2007.
onsdag 19 juni 2013
When FB calls the shots, revolutionaries should worry
By Jorge Capelán, Tortilla con Sal.
When Facebook's Chairman and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, say it's revolutionary one should be wary. The past 10 day's protests in Brazil have been hailed by most progressives in the West as well as by activists and politically committed people all over the world as a revolutionary event. Although they might have a positive political effect, they are not revolutionary per se, and they actually could be used by forces interested in preventing Brazil from playing a decisive role in the budding multipolar world order.
During the last 10 days, a movement has grown, apparently out of thin air, demanding "changes" in Latin America's largest country. According to various reports, it all started with small demonstrations of less than 3.000 people protesting against the rise of 20 cents of Real (less than USD 0.10) in the price of the ticket of the collective transportation system in the city of Sao Paulo. Now it's tens of thousands of people demonstrating in tens of cities all over the country. The demonstrators protest not only against the price and lousy quality of collective transportation, but also against the deficiencies in other public services such as education and health care. They protest against the building of expensive stadiums to host the coming soccer World Championship instead of cheap housing projects, as well as against the corruption of a political system designed to render ineffective any attempt to carry out deep changes.
All this sounds wonderful but, it has to be said, this is not a revolutionary situation.
Who can imagine a revolution ousting a government which has shown that economic policy is not about first creating wealth in order to later distribute it, but the other way around? What is revolutionary about destabilizing a government that has proved that one can both expand the internal market through popular consumption and boost exports? Those are two of the basic tenets of neoliberal Capitalism, and both have been crushed to pieces by Lula's and Rousseff's governments.
These protests are taking place in a country where a progressive government has managed to lift 40-50 million people (about 20-25% of the population) out of poverty. The Brazilian middle class is the one with the largest growth in Latin America - from about 20% in the 1990's to 50% or more today. Inflation is under control and real wages are rising; unemployement is at a all-time low and the government is very popular. Even today, after images of police repression against the demonstrators have been broadcasted, with a popularity drop of 8%, 55% of the Brazilians have a positive view of the government and 77% think President Dilma Rousseff is doing a good job.
Initially, the protesters were met with violence by the authorities, but the government's attitude promptly changed to a conciliatory one. In several cities, the local governments have cancelled their plans to raise the bus ticket and are open to dialogue with the demonstrators.
According to president Rousseff "the protests show the value of democracy and reveal that the citizen are demanding their rights". She condemned isolated cases of violence but valued the prevailingly peaceful attitude of the participants in the protests. That, she said, is "proof of the greatness of our democracy and of the civic character of our people, and is a direct message to those in charge at all levels".
The issues raised by the protesters are not baseless - they are acknowledged as problems by the government and by ruling PT's leaders. Even many of their criticisms of PT itself have been acknowledged by Lula and others. The neoliberal political system is one of the forces holding back Brazil's development. But this is not an insurrection. 250.000 demonstrators do not make a revolution in a country of 205 million. 1/1000% does not make a revolution. Political majorities do. The left in Brazil does not have a majority of its own and is dependent on broad alliances in order to govern, which in turn reflects on its ability to deepen the changes.
These demonstrations have been compared to the mass mobilizations that took place in 1984 and 1990. In 1984, millions of Brazilians took to the streets to demand democratic elections. In 1990, it was to force the then president Collor de Mello to renounce. 250.000 Brazilians today is not much considering that the country's population is 30% larger and is more urbanized. Back in the 80's and 90's, it was political parties and social movements, with clear agendas and slogans with a common objective that took to the streets. Those were organic movements, with strong roots among the popular sectors.
It is not clear who is leading today's protests in Brazil. There is a strong anti-establishment sentiment and a mixture of left-wing and right-wing agendas of urbanized middle-class strata.
It's been said that these demonstrations were convoked through the social media. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest men (13 billion dollars) holds a sign in front of the camera: "IT'S NOT 20 CENTS! #CHANGEBRAZIL!" Revolution? Come on... Zuckerberg got the seed capital to start his firm from CIA's front In-Q-Tel. Facebook, one of the capo di tutti capi in the Internet is a regular informant of the National Security Agency, it was revealed a couple of days ago. In fact, the revelations go, FB and companies such as Apple, Google and Yahoo gave the agency "direct" and unrestricted access to their servers.
I'm not saying that Facebook organized the protests, but it's clear that the CIA's department for Cyberwarfare has a stake on what is going on in Brazil.
The protests may be an opportunity to consolidate the South American giant's rupture away from neoliberal policies, but they might also lead to further destabilizing incidents which in the short or medium term could compromise the process of integration and independence of our continent. So far Dilma Rousseff has reacted wisely. Let's hope she and the PT succeed, because we need a strong Brazil.
When Facebook's Chairman and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, say it's revolutionary one should be wary. The past 10 day's protests in Brazil have been hailed by most progressives in the West as well as by activists and politically committed people all over the world as a revolutionary event. Although they might have a positive political effect, they are not revolutionary per se, and they actually could be used by forces interested in preventing Brazil from playing a decisive role in the budding multipolar world order.
During the last 10 days, a movement has grown, apparently out of thin air, demanding "changes" in Latin America's largest country. According to various reports, it all started with small demonstrations of less than 3.000 people protesting against the rise of 20 cents of Real (less than USD 0.10) in the price of the ticket of the collective transportation system in the city of Sao Paulo. Now it's tens of thousands of people demonstrating in tens of cities all over the country. The demonstrators protest not only against the price and lousy quality of collective transportation, but also against the deficiencies in other public services such as education and health care. They protest against the building of expensive stadiums to host the coming soccer World Championship instead of cheap housing projects, as well as against the corruption of a political system designed to render ineffective any attempt to carry out deep changes.
All this sounds wonderful but, it has to be said, this is not a revolutionary situation.
Who can imagine a revolution ousting a government which has shown that economic policy is not about first creating wealth in order to later distribute it, but the other way around? What is revolutionary about destabilizing a government that has proved that one can both expand the internal market through popular consumption and boost exports? Those are two of the basic tenets of neoliberal Capitalism, and both have been crushed to pieces by Lula's and Rousseff's governments.
These protests are taking place in a country where a progressive government has managed to lift 40-50 million people (about 20-25% of the population) out of poverty. The Brazilian middle class is the one with the largest growth in Latin America - from about 20% in the 1990's to 50% or more today. Inflation is under control and real wages are rising; unemployement is at a all-time low and the government is very popular. Even today, after images of police repression against the demonstrators have been broadcasted, with a popularity drop of 8%, 55% of the Brazilians have a positive view of the government and 77% think President Dilma Rousseff is doing a good job.
Initially, the protesters were met with violence by the authorities, but the government's attitude promptly changed to a conciliatory one. In several cities, the local governments have cancelled their plans to raise the bus ticket and are open to dialogue with the demonstrators.
According to president Rousseff "the protests show the value of democracy and reveal that the citizen are demanding their rights". She condemned isolated cases of violence but valued the prevailingly peaceful attitude of the participants in the protests. That, she said, is "proof of the greatness of our democracy and of the civic character of our people, and is a direct message to those in charge at all levels".
The issues raised by the protesters are not baseless - they are acknowledged as problems by the government and by ruling PT's leaders. Even many of their criticisms of PT itself have been acknowledged by Lula and others. The neoliberal political system is one of the forces holding back Brazil's development. But this is not an insurrection. 250.000 demonstrators do not make a revolution in a country of 205 million. 1/1000% does not make a revolution. Political majorities do. The left in Brazil does not have a majority of its own and is dependent on broad alliances in order to govern, which in turn reflects on its ability to deepen the changes.
These demonstrations have been compared to the mass mobilizations that took place in 1984 and 1990. In 1984, millions of Brazilians took to the streets to demand democratic elections. In 1990, it was to force the then president Collor de Mello to renounce. 250.000 Brazilians today is not much considering that the country's population is 30% larger and is more urbanized. Back in the 80's and 90's, it was political parties and social movements, with clear agendas and slogans with a common objective that took to the streets. Those were organic movements, with strong roots among the popular sectors.
It is not clear who is leading today's protests in Brazil. There is a strong anti-establishment sentiment and a mixture of left-wing and right-wing agendas of urbanized middle-class strata.
It's been said that these demonstrations were convoked through the social media. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, one of the world's richest men (13 billion dollars) holds a sign in front of the camera: "IT'S NOT 20 CENTS! #CHANGEBRAZIL!" Revolution? Come on... Zuckerberg got the seed capital to start his firm from CIA's front In-Q-Tel. Facebook, one of the capo di tutti capi in the Internet is a regular informant of the National Security Agency, it was revealed a couple of days ago. In fact, the revelations go, FB and companies such as Apple, Google and Yahoo gave the agency "direct" and unrestricted access to their servers.
I'm not saying that Facebook organized the protests, but it's clear that the CIA's department for Cyberwarfare has a stake on what is going on in Brazil.
The protests may be an opportunity to consolidate the South American giant's rupture away from neoliberal policies, but they might also lead to further destabilizing incidents which in the short or medium term could compromise the process of integration and independence of our continent. So far Dilma Rousseff has reacted wisely. Let's hope she and the PT succeed, because we need a strong Brazil.
Audio commentary : some aspects of the significance of Nicaragua's Inter-Oceanic Canal
Jorge Capelan and toni solo discuss various aspects of the planned Inter-Oceanic Canal which was formally launched on Friday June 15th 2013.
Click to listen
Click to listen
tisdag 7 maj 2013
Beyond theory - the practice of building socialism in Latin America
toni solo and Jorge Capelán, May 7th 2013
Tortilla con Sal.
"Correction and apology: In an earlier version of this article we incorrectly asserted that James Petras co-signed a letter in 2008 with Noam Chomsky and other leading intellectuals which, in the article, we criticize. This is not the case. We apologize to James Petras for this mistake on our part. We request anyone who has re-posted this article to add this text to the top of wherever they posted our article."
For the imperial propaganda machine, leftist Latin American governments and political leaders are either too leftist, not really leftist, or blind fanatics, as well as being shrewdly machiavellian, capitalists in red clothing, enemies of the market and scores of other contradictory pairs of things all at once.
This is so because the purpose of propaganda is to render unusable the intellectual capacity of the target population to understand reality. By promoting mistrust, anxiety and confusion among those sections of the public in the imperialist countries that might oppose the designs of their rulers, the war planners seek to neutralize any effective solidarity efforts.
Sadly, most European and North American progressive and radical movements and intellectuals have problems coming to terms with this, no matter what their experience, reputation or insights into what the Empire routinely does to humanity.
Without direct involvement in them, virtually none of those intellectuals can offer a true and fair view of Latin America's various revolutionary processes. They may offer plausible theories and schemas, but the nitty gritty of achieving power and effecting radical change will always elude them. Examples of this fact abound.
Depending entirely on academics like Noam Chomsky, or James Petras, for example, for a grasp of events in Latin America is a mistake. Those writers theoretical preconceptions tend to fall apart when applied to specific realities. One need not follow the anti-Stalinism of the historian E.P.Thompson into its ultimate social-democrat cul-de-sac to acknowledge the central argument of “The Poverty of Theory” against idealist theory.
The article "Pink Tide in Latin America: An Alliance Between Local Capital and Socialism" by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya published on May 3 by Global Research is an example of this sad truth. In the final paragraphs of his article, a series of reflections on the future developments in the region after Chavez' death, the author writes:
"It can be argued that the political current in Latin America is mostly a question of financial and economic independence, rather than a socialist project challenging the capitalist world-system."
Without developing further this thesis, Nazemroaya's piece actually is an exercise in inconsequential and superficial dissection of the progressive/radical governments in the region, with the purpose of questioning the anti-capitalist character of the process of integration taking part in Latin America. Since Nazemroaya's analysis spreads many biases and mistaken views that are functional to the imperial propaganda efforts against those governments, we will deal with it in this article, but first let us address the core thesis the author put forward in his piece without thoroughly grounding it.
Indeed, there is a (conflictive) synergy between (some) Capitalist and anti-capitalist interests behind the movement for Latin American unity and independence. There is a huge amount of money in the hands of the Latin American oligarchies which, under the right circumstances, might be interested in investing in the regional market rather than, say, in the Swiss banking system or in regional tax havens. The emergence of China as a major lender and investor in the region, the stagnation of the US and European economies and the massive development projects carried out thanks to the initiative of governments which Nazemroaya designates under the derogatory term "Pink Tide", explain some of the central drives behind this process. But does this mean that what is going on in Latin America today is not the emergence of "a socialist project challenging the capitalist world-system"?
Whoever doesn't see the anti-capitalist value of ending the hegemony of Western imperialism once and for all and of building a multi-polar world order should start writing science-fiction novels instead of feigning engagement in actual anti-capitalist struggle. It's really puzzling that an editor of Global Research has problems grasping this point. However, there is much more to the anti-capitalist ambitions of the Latin American integrationist efforts than the multi-polar dimension alone.
In Latin America, it is impossible to engage in the construction of socialist and anti-capitalist alternatives without at the same time struggling to integrate the region politically, economically and even culturally. "I desire to see America fashioned into the greatest nation in the world, greatest not so much by virtue of her area and wealth as by her freedom and glory" (1). That is the legacy of Bolivar, as was the legacy of Martí, of Sandino, Mariátegui, Gaitán, Che, Fidel Castro and many other Latin American revolutionaries since Independence. This is so because the colonial and imperial powers needed to split the region up into small countries in order to exploit its resources and labor. This is not something Chavez made up, it is an old insight down here.
At the core of the Latin American process of independent integration is the Bolivarian Alliance, ALBA, which comprises 8 full members with a total population of 70 or 80 million (some 15% of the region's population) plus an ever-growing list of countries participating as guest members and observers.
ALBA's economic relationships are not based on profit but on solidarity and complementarity among its members. Nor is it an alliance of convenience, but a project aimed at consolidating a higher political unit beyond Capitalism. It is not based on Venezuelan charity either, but on the use of common resources as a lever enabling its member countries to leave Capitalism behind.
Through ALBA and schemes such as PETROCARIBE (18 member countries), the Venezuelan oil imports are re-invested by the non oil-producing countries in social and economic programs financed by almost interest-free long-term loans. Thus, agricultural countries such as Nicaragua widen their list of trade partners, but most importantly, they develop and diversify their economies becoming less dependent on the export of agricultural products.
Exchanges at all levels between Venezuela, Cuba and the rest of the ALBA member countries aim at sharing experiences on all fields. For example, Nicaraguan rural workers travel to Venezuela to share their experiences of cooperative organization in order to help Venezuela increase its food production. Cuban personnel from many different fields, specially health care and education, play a very important role in many social programs, but they also share their experience and know-how while at the same time gathering many experiences from their colleagues in the other member countries. ALBA members have started using their own national currencies instead of the US dollar to trade with each other through a financial arrangement called SUCRE, the Unified System of Regional Compensation. This scheme helps protect the ALBA's economies from the financial collapse of Capitalism.
From the examples above, it is foolish to deny the anticapitalist dynamics of ALBA. Even more foolish would be to deny ALBA's influence on the rest of Latin America.
ALBA was founded in 2004 after an agreement between Venezuela and Cuba. The following year, in 2005, the US plan to build a "free trade" zone in the Americas, the FTAA, was buried at the Summit of The Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, when most Latin American governments refused to hail Bush's offer of "open up your customs or else..." Without the joint leadership of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva and late Argentinean president Néstor Kirchner, this strategic defeat of imperialism in Latin America would not have been possible.
With the establishment, on February 23rd, 2010, of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC, the 33 countries in the region, for the first time in history, created an organization outside the control of the United States and Canada. Without the role played by Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, CELAC's profile would not be as integral as it is today. Actually, Venezuela's contribution was crucial, not only because of the strategic dimension of the Bolivarian revolution, but also because of its intelligent handling of the most reactionary sectors of the Colombian oligarchy represented by Alvaro Uribe.
It is quite clear that some Capitalist interests see important opportunities in all these developments, but they are not politically organized. The Latin American right is dominated by highly aggressive, reactionary pro-imperialist political parties, right-wing networks and corporate media. On a daily bases, these groups conspire and carry out disinformation campaigns against almost all governments in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially those with progressive and radical inclinations.
In his article, Nazemroaya questions these government's leftist and anti-capitalist credentials. Although he warns against "oversimplification and romanticization", and although he tries to define what he understands as "left", Nazemroaya confuses the concepts and decontextualizes the facts, ending up with a list of more or less flattering aspects which he then uses to build up a negative portrait of the developments in Latin America.
Let us start with the concepts. Correctly, Nazemroaya defines "left" and "right" as political positions within a given context, but he then almost immediately abandons all interest in understanding the multiplicity of the contexts that compose the reality of the region to focus on the fact that there is "a Plethora of 'Lefts' in Latin America", an "eclectic bunch" as the author's derogatory style defines them.
Nazemroaya goes even further and states that "Latin American left-wing governments do not strictly operate to the 'left'": So, according to his actual view, there is a "real left" (a context-independent Left he feels he is entitled to define as such) and some kind of "fake left" (another context-independent left he thinks is entitled to denounce as false). As "proof" of his assertion, the author refers to an alleged "debate over whether the Cuban socialist project is genuinely reforming or if it will eventually follow the paths of capitalist restoration like China and Vietnam".
A debate where? In some cafe in Toronto? That is not a serious argument, for two reasons. Firstly, the existence of debates about the future course of a revolution are no proof of the actual orientation of that revolution. Secondly, Nazemroaya passes as received truths his opinions on socialism in China and Vietnam without feeling it necessary to go into any further details.
Actually, as true as the fact that there are many "lefts" in Latin America, is the fact that there is a vast experience of collective discussions among those "lefts". An example of this is the Forum of Sao Paulo, which since 1990 has gathered more than 90 political organizations from almost all countries, including Puerto Rico. Most countries are represented by several political parties, and in cases such as Argentina and Uruguay, by 12 or 13 organizations. For over 20 years, those organizations, ranging from the Chilean Socialist Party to the Cuban Communist Party, from various Peronist parties in Argentina to Peruvian nationalists, just to mention a few examples, have been able to carry out many debates and achieve consensus around key issues such as the struggle to end the US genocidal blockade of Cuba, the support to the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and ALBA as well as the project of continental integration.
The huge continental wave of solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution after Hugo Chavez death, especially in face of the fascist violence unleashed by Capriles Radonski's thugs, is another case in point in relation to the capacity of this variegated array of "leftist" movements to very quickly set aside their differences for a common cause. Without the existence of similar mechanisms and processes, it would have been impossible, in recent months, to mobilize a movement capable of denouncing the Cuban CIA agent Yoani Sanches World Tour. In capital after capital where the CIA blogger attempted to smear Cuba, se was received by large groups of activists that on several occasions managed to force her to desist from her activities.
Another case in point, The existence of the Network of Intellectuals in Defence of Humanity, composed of hundreds, if not thousands, of intellectuals from all over the world and from a broad ideological spectrum, routinely organizing campaigns in defence of Cuba, Venezuela and ALBA, as well as against imperialist putschist moves in countries such as Honduras, Ecuador or Paraguay. Without denying the differences between various political movements, it is necessary to stress that there exists an ever-growing common understanding of the problems and challenges ahead.
Nazemroaya warns against easy generalizations but goes on to make sweeping generalizations such as the following:
"Latin America’s comprador elites are the local representatives of the foreign corporations, governments, and interests that have exploited Latin America for centuries. These comprador elites can frankly be described as either the 'House Negros' or racist upper class that have historically ruled Latin America and managed its wealth and resources for the changing centres of power in other parts of the world that have controlled the area. Today, the regional comprador elites are mostly aligned with the United States and prefer Miami or New York City to Caracas or Quito".
One first commentary about this description is obvious: If the Latin American "comprador elites are mostly aligned with the US and prefer Miami or New York to Caracas or Quito", how can they actually be a driving force behind a process of regional integration that is not to the liking of the US, NATO and Europe? Are they really a driving force behind this process as Nazemroaya implies?
This is the kind of sweeping, oversimplifying generalization that makes it impossible to understand the contexts and the particular traits of the various countries in the region. This in turn explains why there are so many "lefts" which, incidentally, show a startling capacity to cooperate with each other and to reach a common consensus around key issues. Also, such oversimplifying generalizations make it impossible to understand the complexities of the international relations among the region's countries, for example, in the case of the relations between Colombia and Venezuela and the Peace Process taking place between FARC-EP and Santos.
The 33 nations that compose Latin America and the Caribbean show a common situation of dependence on imperialism, but they also show startling differences. Countries like Chile, Argentina or Uruguay have very strong European cultural influence, while other countries, such as Bolivia or Guatemala have big indigenous majorities. Some oligarchies are richer than others, some of them have had more freedom than others to carry out policies of import substitution.
Some countries, such as Honduras and Paraguay, have been ruthlessly subjected to a state of utmost political underdevelopment for decades by repressive dictatorships, while others, such as Ecuador or Uruguay, have enjoyed relatively long periods of successful reformism. Although Latin America is the world's most unequal region, not all countries and societies are equally poor and not all of them are equally underdeveloped. Different forms of dependent economic insertion in the World Market, different political cultures, different social realities explain the differences among the political subjects.
Are "Latin America’s comprador elites ... the local representatives of the foreign corporations, governments, and interests that have exploited Latin America for centuries" as Nazemroaya puts it? They are many other things besides that. They are mediators between the Western multinational interests and the local markets, but in many cases, they are players on their own right as well. Think about the example of Mexican Carlos Slim, the world's richest man. Think about the financial Colombian capitalists represented by Santos or even sectors of the Brazilian oligarchy. They fear Socialism and most progressive politics, but they also fear the prospects of a sociopolitical meltdown that would make their profits vanish into thin air. In many cases, they have to reluctantly accept many of the progressives' and radicals' policies, even if their newspapers routinely pour bile on those governments.
Lacking a better political reference frame, Nazemroaya lays hand on James Petras' typology on the Latin American left - one the weakest intellectual products of the US-American sociologist. With this typology, an otherwise sharp analyst such as Petras cannot resist the Western temptation of handing out small stars of revolutionary approval to movements he fancies more than others, irrespective of the concrete circumstances of their struggles. Incapable of understanding many of the true challenges of social transformation in the real world and the actual limits of political power, Petras projects his romanticized revolutionary ideals on various movements and subjects. When those movements in real life do not behave according to Petras' wishes, they are either ditched or condescendingly tapped on the back with some scornful comment on having "sold out". Apparently unable to understand the value of nation-building for the materialization of any sort of socialist project, he rejects movements such as Peronismo, irrespective of how stubbornly the working-class masses support them.
Petras' schematic division between “radical left”, “pragmatic left”, “pragmatic neo-liberals” and “doctrinaire neo-liberal regimes” is seriously flawed when confronted with reality. If FARC were in the same situation as PSUV in Venezuela, it would certainly act along much the same lines. In fact, it supports the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and shares its inspirational force, namely, the heritage of Simon Bolivar.
In Brazil, the Landless Workers' Movement gives critical support to the Worker's Party (PT). While it rightly criticizes the agribusiness-oriented development strategy of Lula's and Dilma Roussef's party, the Landless Workers' Movement also understands the various constraints the PT government faces being dependent on alliances with other political forces, in an inmense country where the oligarchy retains considerable power at all levels. They are also well aware of what it would mean were the neo-liberal right to return to political power in Brazil.
In Argentina, to call Cristina Fernández a "pragmatic neo-liberal" is an outright insult, not to mention an irresponsible lack of solidarity with a progressive government subject every day to the most vicious destabilizing campaigns from the oligarchy. No neo-liberal regime increases minimum wages, raises pensions, improves education or fights poverty. Nor does any neo-liberal regime say "Good-bye" to IMF the way Argentina has done.
The same goes for Mauricio Funes' government in El Salvador, where the FMLN is on its way to win the coming elections with a candidate of its own. Incapable of identifying processes and accumulation of forces, dogmatic analysts such as Petras/Nazemroaya see only traitors, sell-outs and capitalists everywhere. The superficiality of Petras' analysis becomes sheer bad faith when it comes to certain countries he simply doesn't mention such as Nicaragua, where cooperatives account for about 40% of the country's GDP and about 70% of the work force.
Back in mid-2008, a group of leading left-wing Western intellectuals, most prominently Noam Chomsky, wrote a letter supporting a hunger strike held by ex-FSLN leader Dora Maria Tellez in Nicaragua. Tellez was protesting the elimination of her MRS political alliance from the municipal elections in November of that year for having failed to comply with the electoral law. So Noam Chomsky and the other well-respected intellectuals concerned demonstrated the loyalty and solidarity of their intellectual-managerial class and spoke out on her behalf.
In fact, as it transpired, the MRS immediately entered into an electoral alliance with the Nicaragua's corrupt extreme right-wing PLC party. They campaigned in particular in support of reactionary banker, Eduardo Montealegre who to this day uses his parliamentary immunity to avoid indictment for multi-million dollar banking fraud. Clearly, the MRS suckered Noam Chomsky and his fellow intellectuals into misguidedly supporting her 2008 charade, because those intellectuals had no idea of the political realities in Nicaragua. Anyone who doubts MRS' allegiance to the US Embassy in Managua, should read some of the diplomatic cables recently released by WikiLeaks on the subject.
That particular case only highlights the pitfalls of depending on the neat schemas of the managerial class who dominate intellectual production in North America and Europe. So when Nazemroaya cites James Petras as his theoretical reference point in his recent article on Latin America, one needs to apply extreme scepticism to his arguments so as to try and discern the reality. Among the typical omissions of James Petras and his colleagues, Nicaragua understandably looms large by its absence.
They see that a given country still is in the grip of IMF loans, but they are incapable of seeing that the country is becoming less dependent on such loans. They see that a given country is depending on agro-exports, but they don't see how that country is diversifying its economy and becoming less dependent on those exports. They see capitalists and State-Capitalism and cry "Neoliberalism! Extractivism!" without even proposing a workable alternative that might to develop a country's productive forces. Or else when they actually see those alternatives being implemented by those governments, they shout "It is not enough!".
To revolutions applies an old Latin American saying: "It is easy to look at the lady from afar, but quite a different story to go ahead and talk to her".
A superficial and disrespectful treatment of developments in Latin America poses two sets of problems. The first one is that it makes practical solidarity more difficult, especially now, when Washington is engaging in a fascist continental crusade against Latin America. The second set of problems has to do with the crucial importance of the Latin American experience for any new projects beyond Capitalism anywhere else in the world.
Tortilla con Sal.
"Correction and apology: In an earlier version of this article we incorrectly asserted that James Petras co-signed a letter in 2008 with Noam Chomsky and other leading intellectuals which, in the article, we criticize. This is not the case. We apologize to James Petras for this mistake on our part. We request anyone who has re-posted this article to add this text to the top of wherever they posted our article."
For the imperial propaganda machine, leftist Latin American governments and political leaders are either too leftist, not really leftist, or blind fanatics, as well as being shrewdly machiavellian, capitalists in red clothing, enemies of the market and scores of other contradictory pairs of things all at once.
This is so because the purpose of propaganda is to render unusable the intellectual capacity of the target population to understand reality. By promoting mistrust, anxiety and confusion among those sections of the public in the imperialist countries that might oppose the designs of their rulers, the war planners seek to neutralize any effective solidarity efforts.
Sadly, most European and North American progressive and radical movements and intellectuals have problems coming to terms with this, no matter what their experience, reputation or insights into what the Empire routinely does to humanity.
Without direct involvement in them, virtually none of those intellectuals can offer a true and fair view of Latin America's various revolutionary processes. They may offer plausible theories and schemas, but the nitty gritty of achieving power and effecting radical change will always elude them. Examples of this fact abound.
Depending entirely on academics like Noam Chomsky, or James Petras, for example, for a grasp of events in Latin America is a mistake. Those writers theoretical preconceptions tend to fall apart when applied to specific realities. One need not follow the anti-Stalinism of the historian E.P.Thompson into its ultimate social-democrat cul-de-sac to acknowledge the central argument of “The Poverty of Theory” against idealist theory.
The article "Pink Tide in Latin America: An Alliance Between Local Capital and Socialism" by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya published on May 3 by Global Research is an example of this sad truth. In the final paragraphs of his article, a series of reflections on the future developments in the region after Chavez' death, the author writes:
"It can be argued that the political current in Latin America is mostly a question of financial and economic independence, rather than a socialist project challenging the capitalist world-system."
Without developing further this thesis, Nazemroaya's piece actually is an exercise in inconsequential and superficial dissection of the progressive/radical governments in the region, with the purpose of questioning the anti-capitalist character of the process of integration taking part in Latin America. Since Nazemroaya's analysis spreads many biases and mistaken views that are functional to the imperial propaganda efforts against those governments, we will deal with it in this article, but first let us address the core thesis the author put forward in his piece without thoroughly grounding it.
Indeed, there is a (conflictive) synergy between (some) Capitalist and anti-capitalist interests behind the movement for Latin American unity and independence. There is a huge amount of money in the hands of the Latin American oligarchies which, under the right circumstances, might be interested in investing in the regional market rather than, say, in the Swiss banking system or in regional tax havens. The emergence of China as a major lender and investor in the region, the stagnation of the US and European economies and the massive development projects carried out thanks to the initiative of governments which Nazemroaya designates under the derogatory term "Pink Tide", explain some of the central drives behind this process. But does this mean that what is going on in Latin America today is not the emergence of "a socialist project challenging the capitalist world-system"?
Whoever doesn't see the anti-capitalist value of ending the hegemony of Western imperialism once and for all and of building a multi-polar world order should start writing science-fiction novels instead of feigning engagement in actual anti-capitalist struggle. It's really puzzling that an editor of Global Research has problems grasping this point. However, there is much more to the anti-capitalist ambitions of the Latin American integrationist efforts than the multi-polar dimension alone.
In Latin America, it is impossible to engage in the construction of socialist and anti-capitalist alternatives without at the same time struggling to integrate the region politically, economically and even culturally. "I desire to see America fashioned into the greatest nation in the world, greatest not so much by virtue of her area and wealth as by her freedom and glory" (1). That is the legacy of Bolivar, as was the legacy of Martí, of Sandino, Mariátegui, Gaitán, Che, Fidel Castro and many other Latin American revolutionaries since Independence. This is so because the colonial and imperial powers needed to split the region up into small countries in order to exploit its resources and labor. This is not something Chavez made up, it is an old insight down here.
At the core of the Latin American process of independent integration is the Bolivarian Alliance, ALBA, which comprises 8 full members with a total population of 70 or 80 million (some 15% of the region's population) plus an ever-growing list of countries participating as guest members and observers.
ALBA's economic relationships are not based on profit but on solidarity and complementarity among its members. Nor is it an alliance of convenience, but a project aimed at consolidating a higher political unit beyond Capitalism. It is not based on Venezuelan charity either, but on the use of common resources as a lever enabling its member countries to leave Capitalism behind.
Through ALBA and schemes such as PETROCARIBE (18 member countries), the Venezuelan oil imports are re-invested by the non oil-producing countries in social and economic programs financed by almost interest-free long-term loans. Thus, agricultural countries such as Nicaragua widen their list of trade partners, but most importantly, they develop and diversify their economies becoming less dependent on the export of agricultural products.
Exchanges at all levels between Venezuela, Cuba and the rest of the ALBA member countries aim at sharing experiences on all fields. For example, Nicaraguan rural workers travel to Venezuela to share their experiences of cooperative organization in order to help Venezuela increase its food production. Cuban personnel from many different fields, specially health care and education, play a very important role in many social programs, but they also share their experience and know-how while at the same time gathering many experiences from their colleagues in the other member countries. ALBA members have started using their own national currencies instead of the US dollar to trade with each other through a financial arrangement called SUCRE, the Unified System of Regional Compensation. This scheme helps protect the ALBA's economies from the financial collapse of Capitalism.
From the examples above, it is foolish to deny the anticapitalist dynamics of ALBA. Even more foolish would be to deny ALBA's influence on the rest of Latin America.
ALBA was founded in 2004 after an agreement between Venezuela and Cuba. The following year, in 2005, the US plan to build a "free trade" zone in the Americas, the FTAA, was buried at the Summit of The Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, when most Latin American governments refused to hail Bush's offer of "open up your customs or else..." Without the joint leadership of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva and late Argentinean president Néstor Kirchner, this strategic defeat of imperialism in Latin America would not have been possible.
With the establishment, on February 23rd, 2010, of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, CELAC, the 33 countries in the region, for the first time in history, created an organization outside the control of the United States and Canada. Without the role played by Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, CELAC's profile would not be as integral as it is today. Actually, Venezuela's contribution was crucial, not only because of the strategic dimension of the Bolivarian revolution, but also because of its intelligent handling of the most reactionary sectors of the Colombian oligarchy represented by Alvaro Uribe.
It is quite clear that some Capitalist interests see important opportunities in all these developments, but they are not politically organized. The Latin American right is dominated by highly aggressive, reactionary pro-imperialist political parties, right-wing networks and corporate media. On a daily bases, these groups conspire and carry out disinformation campaigns against almost all governments in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially those with progressive and radical inclinations.
In his article, Nazemroaya questions these government's leftist and anti-capitalist credentials. Although he warns against "oversimplification and romanticization", and although he tries to define what he understands as "left", Nazemroaya confuses the concepts and decontextualizes the facts, ending up with a list of more or less flattering aspects which he then uses to build up a negative portrait of the developments in Latin America.
Let us start with the concepts. Correctly, Nazemroaya defines "left" and "right" as political positions within a given context, but he then almost immediately abandons all interest in understanding the multiplicity of the contexts that compose the reality of the region to focus on the fact that there is "a Plethora of 'Lefts' in Latin America", an "eclectic bunch" as the author's derogatory style defines them.
Nazemroaya goes even further and states that "Latin American left-wing governments do not strictly operate to the 'left'": So, according to his actual view, there is a "real left" (a context-independent Left he feels he is entitled to define as such) and some kind of "fake left" (another context-independent left he thinks is entitled to denounce as false). As "proof" of his assertion, the author refers to an alleged "debate over whether the Cuban socialist project is genuinely reforming or if it will eventually follow the paths of capitalist restoration like China and Vietnam".
A debate where? In some cafe in Toronto? That is not a serious argument, for two reasons. Firstly, the existence of debates about the future course of a revolution are no proof of the actual orientation of that revolution. Secondly, Nazemroaya passes as received truths his opinions on socialism in China and Vietnam without feeling it necessary to go into any further details.
Actually, as true as the fact that there are many "lefts" in Latin America, is the fact that there is a vast experience of collective discussions among those "lefts". An example of this is the Forum of Sao Paulo, which since 1990 has gathered more than 90 political organizations from almost all countries, including Puerto Rico. Most countries are represented by several political parties, and in cases such as Argentina and Uruguay, by 12 or 13 organizations. For over 20 years, those organizations, ranging from the Chilean Socialist Party to the Cuban Communist Party, from various Peronist parties in Argentina to Peruvian nationalists, just to mention a few examples, have been able to carry out many debates and achieve consensus around key issues such as the struggle to end the US genocidal blockade of Cuba, the support to the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and ALBA as well as the project of continental integration.
The huge continental wave of solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution after Hugo Chavez death, especially in face of the fascist violence unleashed by Capriles Radonski's thugs, is another case in point in relation to the capacity of this variegated array of "leftist" movements to very quickly set aside their differences for a common cause. Without the existence of similar mechanisms and processes, it would have been impossible, in recent months, to mobilize a movement capable of denouncing the Cuban CIA agent Yoani Sanches World Tour. In capital after capital where the CIA blogger attempted to smear Cuba, se was received by large groups of activists that on several occasions managed to force her to desist from her activities.
Another case in point, The existence of the Network of Intellectuals in Defence of Humanity, composed of hundreds, if not thousands, of intellectuals from all over the world and from a broad ideological spectrum, routinely organizing campaigns in defence of Cuba, Venezuela and ALBA, as well as against imperialist putschist moves in countries such as Honduras, Ecuador or Paraguay. Without denying the differences between various political movements, it is necessary to stress that there exists an ever-growing common understanding of the problems and challenges ahead.
Nazemroaya warns against easy generalizations but goes on to make sweeping generalizations such as the following:
"Latin America’s comprador elites are the local representatives of the foreign corporations, governments, and interests that have exploited Latin America for centuries. These comprador elites can frankly be described as either the 'House Negros' or racist upper class that have historically ruled Latin America and managed its wealth and resources for the changing centres of power in other parts of the world that have controlled the area. Today, the regional comprador elites are mostly aligned with the United States and prefer Miami or New York City to Caracas or Quito".
One first commentary about this description is obvious: If the Latin American "comprador elites are mostly aligned with the US and prefer Miami or New York to Caracas or Quito", how can they actually be a driving force behind a process of regional integration that is not to the liking of the US, NATO and Europe? Are they really a driving force behind this process as Nazemroaya implies?
This is the kind of sweeping, oversimplifying generalization that makes it impossible to understand the contexts and the particular traits of the various countries in the region. This in turn explains why there are so many "lefts" which, incidentally, show a startling capacity to cooperate with each other and to reach a common consensus around key issues. Also, such oversimplifying generalizations make it impossible to understand the complexities of the international relations among the region's countries, for example, in the case of the relations between Colombia and Venezuela and the Peace Process taking place between FARC-EP and Santos.
The 33 nations that compose Latin America and the Caribbean show a common situation of dependence on imperialism, but they also show startling differences. Countries like Chile, Argentina or Uruguay have very strong European cultural influence, while other countries, such as Bolivia or Guatemala have big indigenous majorities. Some oligarchies are richer than others, some of them have had more freedom than others to carry out policies of import substitution.
Some countries, such as Honduras and Paraguay, have been ruthlessly subjected to a state of utmost political underdevelopment for decades by repressive dictatorships, while others, such as Ecuador or Uruguay, have enjoyed relatively long periods of successful reformism. Although Latin America is the world's most unequal region, not all countries and societies are equally poor and not all of them are equally underdeveloped. Different forms of dependent economic insertion in the World Market, different political cultures, different social realities explain the differences among the political subjects.
Are "Latin America’s comprador elites ... the local representatives of the foreign corporations, governments, and interests that have exploited Latin America for centuries" as Nazemroaya puts it? They are many other things besides that. They are mediators between the Western multinational interests and the local markets, but in many cases, they are players on their own right as well. Think about the example of Mexican Carlos Slim, the world's richest man. Think about the financial Colombian capitalists represented by Santos or even sectors of the Brazilian oligarchy. They fear Socialism and most progressive politics, but they also fear the prospects of a sociopolitical meltdown that would make their profits vanish into thin air. In many cases, they have to reluctantly accept many of the progressives' and radicals' policies, even if their newspapers routinely pour bile on those governments.
Lacking a better political reference frame, Nazemroaya lays hand on James Petras' typology on the Latin American left - one the weakest intellectual products of the US-American sociologist. With this typology, an otherwise sharp analyst such as Petras cannot resist the Western temptation of handing out small stars of revolutionary approval to movements he fancies more than others, irrespective of the concrete circumstances of their struggles. Incapable of understanding many of the true challenges of social transformation in the real world and the actual limits of political power, Petras projects his romanticized revolutionary ideals on various movements and subjects. When those movements in real life do not behave according to Petras' wishes, they are either ditched or condescendingly tapped on the back with some scornful comment on having "sold out". Apparently unable to understand the value of nation-building for the materialization of any sort of socialist project, he rejects movements such as Peronismo, irrespective of how stubbornly the working-class masses support them.
Petras' schematic division between “radical left”, “pragmatic left”, “pragmatic neo-liberals” and “doctrinaire neo-liberal regimes” is seriously flawed when confronted with reality. If FARC were in the same situation as PSUV in Venezuela, it would certainly act along much the same lines. In fact, it supports the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and shares its inspirational force, namely, the heritage of Simon Bolivar.
In Brazil, the Landless Workers' Movement gives critical support to the Worker's Party (PT). While it rightly criticizes the agribusiness-oriented development strategy of Lula's and Dilma Roussef's party, the Landless Workers' Movement also understands the various constraints the PT government faces being dependent on alliances with other political forces, in an inmense country where the oligarchy retains considerable power at all levels. They are also well aware of what it would mean were the neo-liberal right to return to political power in Brazil.
In Argentina, to call Cristina Fernández a "pragmatic neo-liberal" is an outright insult, not to mention an irresponsible lack of solidarity with a progressive government subject every day to the most vicious destabilizing campaigns from the oligarchy. No neo-liberal regime increases minimum wages, raises pensions, improves education or fights poverty. Nor does any neo-liberal regime say "Good-bye" to IMF the way Argentina has done.
The same goes for Mauricio Funes' government in El Salvador, where the FMLN is on its way to win the coming elections with a candidate of its own. Incapable of identifying processes and accumulation of forces, dogmatic analysts such as Petras/Nazemroaya see only traitors, sell-outs and capitalists everywhere. The superficiality of Petras' analysis becomes sheer bad faith when it comes to certain countries he simply doesn't mention such as Nicaragua, where cooperatives account for about 40% of the country's GDP and about 70% of the work force.
Back in mid-2008, a group of leading left-wing Western intellectuals, most prominently Noam Chomsky, wrote a letter supporting a hunger strike held by ex-FSLN leader Dora Maria Tellez in Nicaragua. Tellez was protesting the elimination of her MRS political alliance from the municipal elections in November of that year for having failed to comply with the electoral law. So Noam Chomsky and the other well-respected intellectuals concerned demonstrated the loyalty and solidarity of their intellectual-managerial class and spoke out on her behalf.
In fact, as it transpired, the MRS immediately entered into an electoral alliance with the Nicaragua's corrupt extreme right-wing PLC party. They campaigned in particular in support of reactionary banker, Eduardo Montealegre who to this day uses his parliamentary immunity to avoid indictment for multi-million dollar banking fraud. Clearly, the MRS suckered Noam Chomsky and his fellow intellectuals into misguidedly supporting her 2008 charade, because those intellectuals had no idea of the political realities in Nicaragua. Anyone who doubts MRS' allegiance to the US Embassy in Managua, should read some of the diplomatic cables recently released by WikiLeaks on the subject.
That particular case only highlights the pitfalls of depending on the neat schemas of the managerial class who dominate intellectual production in North America and Europe. So when Nazemroaya cites James Petras as his theoretical reference point in his recent article on Latin America, one needs to apply extreme scepticism to his arguments so as to try and discern the reality. Among the typical omissions of James Petras and his colleagues, Nicaragua understandably looms large by its absence.
They see that a given country still is in the grip of IMF loans, but they are incapable of seeing that the country is becoming less dependent on such loans. They see that a given country is depending on agro-exports, but they don't see how that country is diversifying its economy and becoming less dependent on those exports. They see capitalists and State-Capitalism and cry "Neoliberalism! Extractivism!" without even proposing a workable alternative that might to develop a country's productive forces. Or else when they actually see those alternatives being implemented by those governments, they shout "It is not enough!".
To revolutions applies an old Latin American saying: "It is easy to look at the lady from afar, but quite a different story to go ahead and talk to her".
A superficial and disrespectful treatment of developments in Latin America poses two sets of problems. The first one is that it makes practical solidarity more difficult, especially now, when Washington is engaging in a fascist continental crusade against Latin America. The second set of problems has to do with the crucial importance of the Latin American experience for any new projects beyond Capitalism anywhere else in the world.
tisdag 16 april 2013
VENEZUELA: Will the Syrian scenario materialize? (AUDIO)
Tortilla con Sal.
Jorge Capelán interviews journalist Felipe Stuart, who's been following the recent events in Venezuela: Why was the electoral race between revolution and counter-revolution so close? What is going on now? Will the Empire succeed in converting Venezuela into a new Syria?
Click to listen
Jorge Capelán interviews journalist Felipe Stuart, who's been following the recent events in Venezuela: Why was the electoral race between revolution and counter-revolution so close? What is going on now? Will the Empire succeed in converting Venezuela into a new Syria?
Click to listen
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)