Saturday, 20 March 2010
What is it to write
I have drunk the last of the whisky and I have read a review of a novel and I don't truly know what it is I am capable of. I feel this infinite sense of my own inadequacy, my own non-achievement. What have I done with my life? I am well past the middle point but in the lives of those who have done great things there is a consistency of ambition, of dedication and of courage that I have singularly lacked. I am battling against the idiocy of the laptop computer that I am trying to write with because I am afriad to put pen to paper. I simply do not have the strength of purpose, the force of nature, the obstacle-defying urge and the compulsion to overcome the desire of this computer's savage joke to smash up any effort to simply place one word in front of another without being thrown into another sentence like a psychotic elephant on the page. Oh lord save me from myself and my feebleness. I am struggling forever against the imminence of my own shortcomings and cowardice. I do not know how to fight each day in a world that only rewards those who do not surrender to small setbacks. All I want is to do something well, and keep on doing it. My fear used to be to die having achieved nothing. That day is drawing closer, but I seem to be no closer to being able to die at peace with myself. Then again, if I was to die now, I might on some level be relieved that the struggle was over. Perhaps I should learn to enjoy what I have and stop fretting about things that i cannot make happen. Mediocrity is not so bad if you can only embrace it. I must embrace it. Long live mediocre contentment!
Friday, 19 March 2010
Film maker in Caracas speaks
Firstly, let me present my 'credentials' before joining this discussion. I am Irish, I have a PhD in political economy and I am a former freelance documentary maker. I currently live in Venezuela, where I run a small business with my Venezuelan wife. I have been here this time round for about 3 years, although I've been visiting the country on and off for the last 15 years. During my time here I have been an active participant in that political process which many of its proponents like to consider a 'revolution', although I personally wouldn't use the word. I would consider myself an informed and critical supporter of the current Venezuelan government, insofar as I would support any government which seriously attempts to alleviate structural poverty, improve access to health care, recognise indigenous land rights, and promote gender equity, for example. President Hugo Chavez has made considerable headway in these areas, and I believe it behoves any critically-minded person to recognise such advances, just as it also is reasonable to draw attention to this government's errors and omissions. On balance, I would conclude that Chavez has done 'more good than harm', both within Venezuela and at an international level: most notably in his efforts to galvanise South American and Caribbean integration and foster autonomy from historic United States' efforts to assert the primacy of its own political and economic agenda over the best interests of the region's (non-elite) populations. This evaluation doesn't make me a fool, a fanatical communist nor a blind follower of an autocratic self-serving tyrant, as his critics like to portray Chavez. As I understand it, this really is the thrust of the article that stimulated this discussion, the fact that Chavez has the audacity to envisage and attempt to shape a Venezuela which freely determines its own political and economic allegiances in the interests of its own people. Chavez seems to provoke such vitriol in his opponents inside and outside Venezuela, especially in the States (I confess to being a Fox TV watcher!). What are they/you afraid of? A successful democratic socialist state: the "threat of a good example"?, as Oxfam once put it when discussing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, before they were ground into temporary submission in face of a US early-version 'Full Spectrum' onslaught. Yes, come to Venezuela, and stay for a while, and you will be dismayed by electricty black-outs, crime levels, the extent of the penetration of drugs into all socio-economic sectors, corruption, inefficiency, lack of forward planning, etc. Thank God rum is so cheap!!!! Believe me, it's much easier to do business (indeed, to live) in Western Europe. However, to accentuate the negative, and to deny the very real existence of the postive achievements of Chavez, would be to ignore the evidence that in social psychological, cultural and economic terms 'something' has happened in this country; and that the same 'something' is happening across much of Latin America. Call it 'Communism', '21st Century Socialism', 'Anti-imperialism' or 'Liberation Theology' ' or whatever you wish. In essence, those marginalised people (and they predominantly are indigenous/Afro-Latino/'Mulatto') who historically have been excluded from the body politic since the arrival of Columbus until recently, are now claiming their 'piece of the pie'. Like it or not. In the second half of the 20th century, US sponsored dictatorships (Brazil, Chile) or quasi-democracies (Venezuela) brutally kept a lid on the aspirations of the poor across South America. I believe that - short of a series of outright continent-wide, bloody and massively destructive conflicts between local elites and newly-empowered populations - the US will no longer be able to subjugate the South American poor by proxy without direct and enormous military involvement, not withstanding its success in Columbia, a massive recipient of US military aid. So what is the US agenda in South America? Destabilisation? Terrorising into submission national efforts - in Venezuela, in Bolivia, in Equador - to establish a bona fide politically-, economically- and socially-equitable alternative to the US/European model of capitalist free-market representative democracy? Evidently. How far are they prepared to go to achieve these aims? Let's not kid ourselves, we all know the answer. It could get very, very messy in South America. Nevertheless, as a self-proclaimed Socialist it would be disingenuous at best and cowardly at worst not to stick it out down here in the Bolivarian Republic and continue critically to support the region's peoples as they seek to realise their own visions of the future, rather than have them imposed by the White House and Wall Street. So, in the face of US 'terrorism' against the 'South American Dream', one is compelled to remember the words of Bush II - "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists". In that case: "Viva Chavez!"
Comment from Caracas
After reading all the negative comments about Mr. Weisbrot's article I feel obliged to throw in my own. I am a U.S. citizen who has lived in Venezuela for most of the past 25 years. I have experienced Venezuela B.C. (before Chávez) and after. As a Roman Catholic priest, I lived for eight years in a pressed-cardboard and tin shack?part of a B.C. government housing project built when oil money was pouring into the country.
Anyone who wants to come here with eyes wide open should be able to see the light-years? difference in what has happened here. We have never had more freedom of expression. A stroll past the newsstands in Caracas, a scan of the radio stations, or a look at the television being broadcast would quickly reveal to any unbiased observer that the owners of the mass media here say whatever they want to say about the current government.
Government housing, health and education programs are far better than they have ever been in my 25 years here. Is everything perfect? No. Is there still corruption? Yes, and maybe more than ever because there is more money here than ever. But the situation of the ordinary person in the street cannot in any way be compared with what existed in Venezuela?s B.C.
It would take pages to refute all the untruths that keep running through media, but just to mention one that appears in Batleymuslim?s e-mail: ?what would happen if Obama dictated to all the TV and radio stations in the US they had to carry his weekly broadcast, and those that didn't well they get closed down.? No station here has to carry his weekly broadcast. I only know of one that does?the government?s principal station. (Maybe there are a couple more government associated channels that carry it. I?ll check on that this Sunday. But there are about a hundred on regular cable that don?t. Besides that, the government channels are not strong enough to cover all areas of the country.) I don?t wish to belittle Batleymuslim in any way as a person entitled to express an opinion. However, I think it is a good example of the junk that the media serves every day and influences the attitude of people like Batleymuslim.
Anyone who wants to come here with eyes wide open should be able to see the light-years? difference in what has happened here. We have never had more freedom of expression. A stroll past the newsstands in Caracas, a scan of the radio stations, or a look at the television being broadcast would quickly reveal to any unbiased observer that the owners of the mass media here say whatever they want to say about the current government.
Government housing, health and education programs are far better than they have ever been in my 25 years here. Is everything perfect? No. Is there still corruption? Yes, and maybe more than ever because there is more money here than ever. But the situation of the ordinary person in the street cannot in any way be compared with what existed in Venezuela?s B.C.
It would take pages to refute all the untruths that keep running through media, but just to mention one that appears in Batleymuslim?s e-mail: ?what would happen if Obama dictated to all the TV and radio stations in the US they had to carry his weekly broadcast, and those that didn't well they get closed down.? No station here has to carry his weekly broadcast. I only know of one that does?the government?s principal station. (Maybe there are a couple more government associated channels that carry it. I?ll check on that this Sunday. But there are about a hundred on regular cable that don?t. Besides that, the government channels are not strong enough to cover all areas of the country.) I don?t wish to belittle Batleymuslim in any way as a person entitled to express an opinion. However, I think it is a good example of the junk that the media serves every day and influences the attitude of people like Batleymuslim.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Link to BBC World poll on capitalism
Only four out of 27 countries surveyed believe less rather than more government intervention is needed: the US, Turkey, Pakistan and Germany. Remarkably 13% of Americans believe an alternative to capitalism is necessary. The most pro-capitalist public on the planet are Japanese - only 9% believe it needs to be replaced by another system, while 66% believe its problems can be solved with reform and regulation.
The experience of actual existing socialism ie stalinism in East Germany has set them against socialism. Strangely Turks appear to be most opposed to redistribution and state intervention. Perhaps it is something to do with their state, or proximity to the former soviet bloc. Who knows?
Worryingly for the red-fearing Americans, Mexicans are among the most anti-capitalist on the planet, with nearly 2 in 5 believing the system needs replacing, only behind the French.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/11_november/09/poll.shtml
The experience of actual existing socialism ie stalinism in East Germany has set them against socialism. Strangely Turks appear to be most opposed to redistribution and state intervention. Perhaps it is something to do with their state, or proximity to the former soviet bloc. Who knows?
Worryingly for the red-fearing Americans, Mexicans are among the most anti-capitalist on the planet, with nearly 2 in 5 believing the system needs replacing, only behind the French.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/11_november/09/poll.shtml
BBC poll shows widespread disaffection with capitalism
By Julie Hyland
12 November 2009
A global poll by the British Broadcasting Corporation’s World Service shows widespread disaffection with the capitalist free market, including a significant opposition to capitalism per se.
Conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA, the poll interviewed more than 29,000 people in 27 countries, between June 19 and October 13, 2009. These were in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Panama, Costa Rica, Chile, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Spain, Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya.
The poll found that more than three in five respondents were opposed to free-market capitalism. Some 89 percent believed that capitalism was not working, with a majority of those questioned in 22 of the countries indicating strong support for government intervention to support greater regulation of business and the market, in favour of a more socially equitable division of wealth.
Almost a quarter of respondents believed that capitalism should be replaced by a “different system.”
The BBC reported, “If there is one issue where a global consensus seems to emerge from the survey it is this: there are majorities almost everywhere wanting government to be more active in regulating business.”
In only two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did more than one in five people believe the current economic system was working. A majority in 22 of the 27 countries supported greater wealth redistribution—67 percent or an average of two out of three people. In 17 of these countries, a majority responded that they wanted greater regulation of big business. In 15 of these, especially in Russia, the Ukraine, Brazil, Indonesia and France, the majority were in favour of government being more active in owning or controlling major industries.
Twenty-three percent believed capitalism was “fatally flawed.” An almost equal number of people questioned in France felt that capitalism had failed (43 percent), responding that its inadequacies could be resolved by greater regulation and reforms (47 percent). After France, the highest numbers supporting the replacement of capitalism were in Mexico (38 percent) and Brazil (35 percent). In the 12 countries highlighted on the BBC website, more than 10 percent in each nation supported this position. Those defending the present set-up were a minority in every instance.
The survey threw up several statistical anomalies. German respondents recorded less support for the view that capitalism had failed than in the US for example. Nonetheless, the majority in each instance—almost 70 percent in the US and more than 80 percent in Germany—registered their disapproval with the status quo.
Responses as to whether the dissolution of the Soviet Union was “a good thing” were less surprising, with the US, Canada, west and central Europe, and Australia showing a majority in favour (between 73 to 81 percent). In those countries that had felt more directly the impact of the USSR’s dissolution in terms of their living standards, the loss of political and economic backing or where it was widely viewed as an alternative to capitalism, the trend was the reverse. Some 61 percent of Russians and 54 percent of Ukrainians felt it had a negative impact, as did the majority of those in Pakistan and Egypt. According to the BBC, “Almost seven in 10 Egyptians say the end of the Soviet Union was a bad thing and views are sharply divided in India, Kenya and Indonesia.”
Overall, a narrow majority (54 percent) of 15 countries polled said the break-up of the USSR was positive, while 24 percent said they did not know.
The poll was timed to coincide with celebrations marking 20 years since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which saw overturns of nationalised property relations across eastern Europe and the Soviet Union—presided over by the Stalinist bureaucracy, now become the nascent capitalist class, under Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.
The BBC commented that in 1989 it had appeared that free-market capitalism had emerged triumphant from the Cold War. Now, however, GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller stated, “It appears that the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 may not have been the crushing victory for free-market capitalism that it seemed at the time—particularly after the events of the last 12 months.”
This is in reference to the economic crisis that is ruining entire economies and destroying living standards the world over.
It was under these circumstances that leaders of the major powers gathered in Berlin on November 9 for a “Festival of Freedom” to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall. But the efforts to revive popular enthusiasm for the overturns of the Stalinist regimes were marred by the fact that all over the world, the supposedly capitalist victor is itself in profound crisis.
At the centre of this global capitalist breakdown is the United States. Having declared itself triumphant following the overturns in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the US is today economically bankrupt.
In reality, as Leon Trotsky had warned, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its satellite states was the tragic and inevitable consequence of the reactionary role played by the Stalinist bureaucracy and its policy of building “socialism in one country.”
12 November 2009
A global poll by the British Broadcasting Corporation’s World Service shows widespread disaffection with the capitalist free market, including a significant opposition to capitalism per se.
Conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA, the poll interviewed more than 29,000 people in 27 countries, between June 19 and October 13, 2009. These were in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Panama, Costa Rica, Chile, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Spain, Nigeria, Egypt and Kenya.
The poll found that more than three in five respondents were opposed to free-market capitalism. Some 89 percent believed that capitalism was not working, with a majority of those questioned in 22 of the countries indicating strong support for government intervention to support greater regulation of business and the market, in favour of a more socially equitable division of wealth.
Almost a quarter of respondents believed that capitalism should be replaced by a “different system.”
The BBC reported, “If there is one issue where a global consensus seems to emerge from the survey it is this: there are majorities almost everywhere wanting government to be more active in regulating business.”
In only two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did more than one in five people believe the current economic system was working. A majority in 22 of the 27 countries supported greater wealth redistribution—67 percent or an average of two out of three people. In 17 of these countries, a majority responded that they wanted greater regulation of big business. In 15 of these, especially in Russia, the Ukraine, Brazil, Indonesia and France, the majority were in favour of government being more active in owning or controlling major industries.
Twenty-three percent believed capitalism was “fatally flawed.” An almost equal number of people questioned in France felt that capitalism had failed (43 percent), responding that its inadequacies could be resolved by greater regulation and reforms (47 percent). After France, the highest numbers supporting the replacement of capitalism were in Mexico (38 percent) and Brazil (35 percent). In the 12 countries highlighted on the BBC website, more than 10 percent in each nation supported this position. Those defending the present set-up were a minority in every instance.
The survey threw up several statistical anomalies. German respondents recorded less support for the view that capitalism had failed than in the US for example. Nonetheless, the majority in each instance—almost 70 percent in the US and more than 80 percent in Germany—registered their disapproval with the status quo.
Responses as to whether the dissolution of the Soviet Union was “a good thing” were less surprising, with the US, Canada, west and central Europe, and Australia showing a majority in favour (between 73 to 81 percent). In those countries that had felt more directly the impact of the USSR’s dissolution in terms of their living standards, the loss of political and economic backing or where it was widely viewed as an alternative to capitalism, the trend was the reverse. Some 61 percent of Russians and 54 percent of Ukrainians felt it had a negative impact, as did the majority of those in Pakistan and Egypt. According to the BBC, “Almost seven in 10 Egyptians say the end of the Soviet Union was a bad thing and views are sharply divided in India, Kenya and Indonesia.”
Overall, a narrow majority (54 percent) of 15 countries polled said the break-up of the USSR was positive, while 24 percent said they did not know.
The poll was timed to coincide with celebrations marking 20 years since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which saw overturns of nationalised property relations across eastern Europe and the Soviet Union—presided over by the Stalinist bureaucracy, now become the nascent capitalist class, under Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.
The BBC commented that in 1989 it had appeared that free-market capitalism had emerged triumphant from the Cold War. Now, however, GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller stated, “It appears that the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 may not have been the crushing victory for free-market capitalism that it seemed at the time—particularly after the events of the last 12 months.”
This is in reference to the economic crisis that is ruining entire economies and destroying living standards the world over.
It was under these circumstances that leaders of the major powers gathered in Berlin on November 9 for a “Festival of Freedom” to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall. But the efforts to revive popular enthusiasm for the overturns of the Stalinist regimes were marred by the fact that all over the world, the supposedly capitalist victor is itself in profound crisis.
At the centre of this global capitalist breakdown is the United States. Having declared itself triumphant following the overturns in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the US is today economically bankrupt.
In reality, as Leon Trotsky had warned, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its satellite states was the tragic and inevitable consequence of the reactionary role played by the Stalinist bureaucracy and its policy of building “socialism in one country.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
