Sorting Out The New Latin American Left
I love this piece by Jorge Castaneda, former Mexican Foreign Minister and someone I'm proud to claim as a friend.
Jorge argues that with most Latin American nations now under left-of-center government, it's a primitive notion to lump all the new leaders together into one, single species of "lefist." There's one "left," he points out that comes out of a Marxist past and, therefore, has successfully assimilated the failures of the Soviet model, including variations like Cuba. This reformed left (as found in Chile, Brazil and Uruguay), is committed not only to social justice but also to the expansion of democracy. It acts as a counter-weight to U.S. dominance, but understands that in a meshed global economy, some realistic accomodation with El Grande Del Norte must be reached.
Then there's the "other" left, Castaneda posits. More old-style demagogic populists than reformed Marxists, they show little concern for democracy and are a bit too ready to pick dramatic fights with Uncle Sam for the sake of short-term domestic popularity(or in the case of Castro, extremely long-term). In this latter category, Castaneda disdainfully places Venezuela's Hugo Chavez ("Peron with oil") and newly elected Bolivian President Evo Morales ( "a skillful and irresponsible populist").
It's a wonderful and insightful read from one of the brightest and most unconventional analysts of hemispheric politics. Jorge's essay is likely to piss off the Bushoid Right (whose eyes roll back into their heads and begin baying at the moon at the very mention of the word "leftist") as well as American Armchair Revolutionaries who are prone to cheer on whoever sounds more radical -- as long as they, of course, don't have to pay any of the costs of the ensuing confrontations. I always have a chuckle at how some well-fed Americans express such admiration for the equality of the Cuban ration card!
(Hat Tip: Randy Paul)
January 6th, 2006 at 6:38 am
And then there’s this guy…
http://tinyurl.com/att3s
Ralph Nader meets Che ?????
January 6th, 2006 at 7:09 am
It should come as no surprise that Marc Cooper and Jorge Castaneda would have a lot in common. Castaneda was the foreign minister of Vicente Fox’s rightwing government and an ex-leftist. He advocates capitalist development in Latin America, which is exactly the same thing that Cooper advocates if you dig beneath his phony leftist rhetoric.
January 6th, 2006 at 8:18 am
“Survival of the Richest.â€
January 6th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Hey Joe Blow.. ur Stalinist rhetoric is off a tick. Instead of saying “it should come as no surprise” you are supposed to say “It is no accident, comrades…”
Actually, as someone whose acquiantance with marxism dates back 40 years… I, like Marx, don’t believe that socialism can be built on the basis of poverty or want and it certainly cant be built in one counrty– especially underdeveloped countries.
Hate to be pedantic about it, but the Marxist view is that socialism is a stage of GLOBAL economic developlment superior to capitalism i.e. it requires the full development of a capitalist economic base to function/
So yes Comrade Joe. I confess! I confess! I am in favor of capitalist development in Latin America. If you are a Bolivian, the problem isnt sharing wealth. It’s creating wealth to share. Nationalising poverty doesnt get you very far. Ask the Cubans.
Now, back to your armchair.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Woody alert! Cooper advocates capitalist development in Latin America as part of his long-term Marxist strategy for world domination.
(just kidding – I almost wrote a comment echoing yours and then thought, why bother…this kind of psuedo-left thinking is too juvenile to worry oneself with.)
January 6th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Cooper, the full development of a capitalist economic base is impossible to achieve in Latin America. Imperialism will always throttle independent capitalist development, as should be obvious from what happened to Juan Peron or Joao Goulart/ You should read something by the late Harry Magdoff to help you figure this out. Cuba, which you despise so much, was able to develop because it removed itself from the capitalist framework. I know that you are upset because it doesn’t allow the NED to operate freely but those are the breaks.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
“Cuba, which you despise so much, was able to develop because it removed itself from the capitalist framework. ”
As for me, I despise Castro (not Cuba) as much for the fact that he never was able to come up with a pragmatic alternative development strategy as for his scumbag, neo-Stalinist politics. The day Fidel praised the Soviet tanks rolling into Prague was the day he lost the benefit of the doubt from me. But hitching his moribund economy to the Soviet star was utterly foolish and showed a total lack of any serious strategy for development that others in Latin America could learn from. That said, I’ll also admit that in the areas of education and public health, they’ve done better than other poor countries. But, as Jacobo Timmerman once quipped, what’s the point of achieving high literacy if all you’ve got to read is Granma? I can understand how schematic, academic ideologists, holding out footnotes in Monthly Review as the best hope for the future of the oppressed masses, can torture together a defense of Cuba’s “economic development” along some neo-leninist lines. What I don’t understand is how a conventional, if creepy and quirky left-liberal like Oliver Stone can suck up to Fidel – unless he believes the world should be run like one of his movie sets. That’s probably it…
Of course, Karen Wald and her ilk will forever hold high the banner…
January 6th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
El Pueblo Unido…Will Never Eat A Cheeto !!!!
January 6th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Do people here believe US policy has migrated haltingly toward a better understanding of how to deal with Latin and South America, in a three steps forward, 2.9 steps back sort of way?
January 6th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
“Cuba, which you despise so much, was able to develop because it removed itself from the capitalist framework. â€
So its a self imposed embargo?
January 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Hugo Chavez looks like Bob’s Big Boy in military fatigues. I just thought this needed to be said.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Cuba didn’t develop they stagnated, stuck on 1959.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Can’t see why Morales fits in there – he has done everything to reassure international markets and the far-left (see Petras) thinks he’s more of a Lula than a Chavez. Paul Wolfowitz himself sent him a congratulatory note.
January 6th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Do you think reclining on a plush Drexel Heritage love seat with two thick down cushions and a chenille throw, qualifies me as being an “American Armchair Revolutionary,†or do I need to repose on an eighteenth century antique settee? Does being comfortable disallow one from discussing leftist politics. Do I shamefully belong to the bourgeoisie because I never chopped brush with a machete in Latin America?
January 6th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
“Survival of the Richest”
See:
http://marccooper.com/schwarzeneggers-double-play/#comment-25851
January 6th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I’d like to see all of the leftist “ideologes” succeed…I fear that the smart money is on the likelihood that NONE of them will. Genuflect to the laws of capitalism or die.
January 6th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Eleanore.. I throw no stones. I happily define myself as a swimming pool socialist. I often dream of a new Red Dawn while floating in the heated waters of my backyard. But in doing so, I wish people a more harmonious life rather than hoping they will immolate themselves in a great glorious battle with imperialism.
January 6th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I continue to be foggy on what the difference is between leftist totalitarians and right wing ones. The former has healthcare paid for?
January 6th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
It would be disingenuous for me to deny that bourgeoisie comforts have its appeal; but certainly I am not part of the ignorant middle-class or a mindless “Bobos†(not Bimbo) who totally needs to reinforce their identity through the acquisition of useless stuff—although I have my share.
Politically I am cognizant that the “Corporatacracy†that we live in provides the illusion of a middle-class-–but if you peer deeper through this illusion you’ll only find two classes—those who control and those who do not.
The problem that third world countries have in accepting economic help from the U.S. is that it does not come cheap—you also have to accept the U.S. agenda, and be willing to become part of our GLOBAL EMPIRE. Not every sovereign country who desires self-determination is willing to oblige Condi.
We are sort of like the Mafioso, in that we give money or loans to help build the infra-structure—highways, ports airports but we also insist that Halliburton does the construction, so in essence these countries that genuflect so willing to our “plan†never see the money, and if they do see it is spread very thinly among one percent of the entire population—thus leaving most in poverty and squalor.
We’re masters at destroying a countries ecology while creating the emergence of theocracies, puppet governments and dictatorships—all in order to maintain control and establish dominance. Who said there is such a thing as a free lunch?
January 6th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
“Does being comfortable disallow one from discussing leftist politics. Do I shamefully belong to the bourgeoisie because I never chopped brush with a machete in Latin America?”
Well, considering that the leading left wing weekly, The Nation, is inhabited by rich folks. The leading “progressive” organizations (insert NGO here) are inhabited by “achievers” with the right credentials. They may throw the occasional person of color a bone, but generally it is a club of the selected elite.
The left is like a super meritocracy, even worse than corporate America. Christopher Lasch saw this coming. It is one of the major, if not central problems with the left. The left of the 30’s benefited from plebeians and émigrés, while the left today is inhabited by the likes of Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Read Victor S. Navasky’s recent book, the left seems to be a series of conferences at posh hotels, not Marxist study groups. We could get into the indulgences of the academic left, but that would take up a whole blog. In short, the left is a product of the radical chic 60’s and is more symbolic than a real working class movement from the bottom up.
In all of this, labor, social workers, teachers, etc… are left out in the dust. Rich people showing solidarity for the poor is nice and all, but in reality it is rather hollow. Holding poor people up as the “noble savage†is condescending and counterproductive. The current state of multiculturalism is the noble savage personified. For all of the talk about diversity, tolerance, etc… lefties living the burbs or gentrified urban oasis are not really living with “the people.†So, yes, you need to have some real understanding of the problems working people face in order to have real solidarity. Being comfortable does in a sense disallow you from having any meaningful discussion.
But a lot of people have money but also have discipline, humility, and generosity and thus solidarity from them could seem to have a bit more sincerity. Being greedy, arrogant, and flaunting your wealth is another thing all together. I can’t image what that the Nation Cruise is like, but I can image a lot of discussions about summering in the Hamptons and fine wine. Either way, having rich people and a selected elite in the saddle is perhaps the biggest problem for the left.
Evangelical Christians are closer to the poor and working class than any left wingers. I don’t know many Westside liberals who took in Katrina refugees. Manhattan radicals were more concerned about the forgotten pets than the homeless people.
A real left would be against oligarchs and bosses of left and right. A real left should be a bottom up movement.
January 6th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Josh,
All good points—and the French Communist Party became aware of this while Paris was burning.
As a librarian employed in a working-class neighborhood, I have never lost sight of how the poor are marginalized and how workers are exploited. The irony is that my politics are considered extreme.
So how is it possible that the people who are being exploited the most are the least cognizant of their own exploitation? Those working-class roots need some heavy duty watering—because there is a serious lack of consciousness out there. Many of these workers voted for Bush!
The point is that a vast number of people in this country need to become more politicized—they go no further then mainstream news—and some don’t even look at that! Sunday night means Desperate Housewives—this is what you are up against. Much of the population has been “Prozaced-out†by our culture.
Instead of fighting among ourselves about the best criteria for determining a TRUE leftist; let’s go out and communicate our message to the working-class, send e-mails and try to be more adept than the televangelists at spreading our political gospel.
January 6th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I love this quote from Irving Kristol:
Social Democrats, USA
Copyright: 1996, SD, USA
Kristol described the current Republican coalition as consisting primarily of two main strains: economic and social conservatives. The economic conservatives are anti-state and the social conservatives are anti-liberal who view liberalism “as corroding and subverting the virtues that they believe must be the bedrock of decent society.” He believes that the differences between the economic conservatives and the social conservatives produce “tensions” between the two groups. Kristol’s long range view is that the social conservatives represent “an authentic mass movement that gathers strength with every passing year.”
from:
Splitting the Republican Coalition
January 6th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
The right-wing social democrats are in charge of the Republican Party, and not the Libertarians.
—————————————————-
This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on “the road to serfdom.” Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.
from:
The Neoconservative Persuasion
—————————————————————–
In his foreword to the first paperback edition of The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1978), sociologist Daniel Bell announced that he was “a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.” People “might find this statement puzzling,” Bell went on, “assuming that if a person is radical in one realm, he is radical in all others; and, conversely, if he is a conservative in one realm, that he must be conservative in the others as well. Such an assumption misreads, both sociologically and morally, the nature of these different realms.”1
From:
Disjoining the Left: Cultural Contradictions of Anticapitalism
January 6th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Right-Wing nationalists know which communities to take care of and which communities to brutalize and which communities to ignore.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Let a thousand flowers bloom, comrades. The Cold War is over and the United Fruit Company no longer dictates US policy down south. I suspect that any Latin American, of whatever political stripe, will get a free pass from Washington, so long as he can resist the anti-Yanqui urge to make common cause with the Islamo- nutjobs who think having Manhattan go up in a mushroom cloud is a form of political development.
Power to the people! Hugo, Morales, Lula, do your best!
Sincerely, I am rooting for the Latin American Left. Create wealth! Feed people! Go ahead.
Jorge Castañeda is correct. There is a Left that equals pure demagogy, in the time-honored Latin American tradition of the Caudillo, and there is a morally serious Left that seeks a democratic, socialist alternative to the present theory and practice of multi-national liberalism, capitalism, call it what you will.
What does this latter group have to offer, beyond bromides and good faith? For the life of me, I can’t tell you, but I am willing to keep an open mind, which is different from saying that I don’t have an opinion.
My opinion is that any of you Americans (USAers, for the politically correct) who have never known
hunger and want and consider it a fluke might want to reconsider.
The reason that we are rich and they are poor is that we don’t stop people from owning property and starting businesses, and they do.
Marxists who accept that bourg. Capitalism precedes socialism are exempt from my criticism. The rest of you are undoubtedly the kind of left-wing symps who can’t tell the difference between a guy holding out his hand on a street corner and and a guy standing on that same street corner, offering you six tube socks for five dollars.
Here is a link to Wikopedia’s account of De Soto, which is by no means adulatory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_(economist)
Agree or disagre, you can’t deny that De Soto offers a theory of wealth.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
You’ve got to wonder about these attacks on Morales from Latin America’s Vaclav Havel/Radek Sikorski “left”. The man hasn’t been in office more than a minute and already these anklebiters are nipping at his heels.
Cooper’s own analysis of Chavez, at the Truthdig site, was much more balanced and accurate than Castenada’s.
Paul: “Do people here believe US policy has migrated haltingly toward a better understanding of how to deal with Latin and South America, in a three steps forward, 2.9 steps back sort of way?”
Uh, yeah, that’s exactly how it works.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:15 am
Some responses.
Paul: US policy in Lat Amer has improved only to the small degree that the Cold War has evaporated. There’s more flexibilty than, say, in the days of Reagan. But there’s mostly a who gives a fuck attitude from Washington. Reformed sectors of the left, as in Chile, have helped facilitate the small progress that has been achieved. Castaneda perfectly understood the balanace that had to be struck, but got pushed out because he too openly spoke his mind.
AAA: I dont see anything wrong with nipping at some guy’s heels even BEFORE he is formally ignaurated. In Morales case, to paraphrase you, he had been elected for no more than 5 minutes before he flew off to Havana to kiss Fidel’s booty. That’s certainly his right. But can you honestly argue that was a smart move as his first move? I think it fits Castaneda’s analysis perfectly: Morales was more interested in posturing photo ops and throwing some red meat (no pun) to his revved up partisans… but he kinda sorta played right into the hands of his most powerful and least accomodating antagonists. We’ll see. I wish Morales well, really. But it’s not at all clear if he’s up for the thankless job. Bottom line: How you gonna create wealth? Nationalizing your few crumbs works for a week or two.. and then what?
Reg: Im sending you to the corner for 2 hours just for mentioning the name Karen Wald. One day when we meet in person I shall regale you with some good stories on this matter and will expect you will reciprocate. In the meantime, don’t do it again.
Lurker: No. Cuba did not self impose the embargo. But that embargo has been totally breached for two decades now by South American, European and Asian capital. And I am among those TOTALLY convinced that while — initially Castro of course opposed the embargo– has has long since become a covert supporter of it. He knows very well that if the U.S. lifted the embargo on Saturday– allowing open trade and travel to Cuba– he would be out on his ass by Sunday evening. There’s nothing that either side fears more right now than lifting the embardo.
Joe Blow: Companero, ur living in La-La land. Cuba remains a sharply under-developed nation with vast amounts of people living barely above subsistence. You are also supplanting economic analysis with cheap rhetoric. Cuba hardly extracted itself from th capitalist market– if it did the embargo would be meaningless. Cuba is as subject to the global market as is El Salvador. The latter country leases it workers out to maquilas. Cuba rents it union-less workers to Spanish hotels, Canadian mines and Mexican airlines that have been granted very capitalist concessions in Cuba. Cuba has not scrapped capitalism. It has merely abolished private enterprise and reserved the entrpreneurial role for an unelected and unaccountable state — one by the way totally rotted out by corruption.
The LATimes had a great piece the other day noting that Fidel had to mobilize the Communist Youth (Cuba’s version of the Young Republicans) to run the country’s gas stations.Why? because FIFTY PERCENT of Cuba’s gas was being stolen. That doesnt happen in a developed economy. Mayne you should do some closer reading of old Harry Magdoff who died 8 days ago. Better yet, read some Marx.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Marc – don’t really have any good stories about Wald. Just remember her from assorted Bay Area left affairs thirty-odd years ago, before she moved to Nirvana – I mean Havana – and she had all the charm of a firing squad. Randomly came across her defense of trials of dissidents in Cuba not long ago and it appears she’s kept the one true faith. Her journalistic standards must be the envy of the guys at L’Osservatore Romano. (It’s been ages since I’ve even rubbed elbows with those types – never liked ‘em, but they seemed ubiquitous in the early seventies – and there’s just something about the perfect commissar personality that sticks in one’s memory.)
January 7th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Josh,
Most working-class and poor people, I meet, identify with the Democratic Party….more so than most of the “intellectual†and/or academic leftists, I know.
Right-Wing populists may have made some inroads into traditionally leftist/progressive territories, but how long will this last? And they are not at the levels Nixon and Reagan had them.
Working-Class folks didn’t seem have been threatened or bothered by Kerry, as much as the intellectual left, or the right-wing populists.
Sectarian leftists seem to do more harm than right-wing populists, because they have given up on “the masses†for not being “class-conscious†enough.
(Sorry for being OT)
January 7th, 2006 at 10:47 am
The folks at the Nation are who they are, expecting middle-class folks who have leftists’ critiques to start acting “working-class” or suggesting they should start “slumming it” so that they can “get real” is a bit condescending, as well.
I believe most of the working-class folks care more about winning elections and getting their cut of the pie, than hanging-out with middle-class leftists.
Middle-Class leftists have access to knowledge and power that working-class people don’t have…that’s were their needed.
January 7th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
marc, i, too, like a lot of the castaneda article. but i do think that morales is more lula than chavez. yes, he scampered off to kiss up to castro and chavez in rapid fashion. but, he also followed that up with meetings in spain, france yesterday, and soon to south africa, china and brazil. he also did his obligatory meeting with the us ambassador before darting off to caracas. i see his trips and friendly statements toward cuba and venezuela chieftains as reaffirming his loyalty to longtime friends rather than impressing partisans at home and forming a latin axis of evil. and loyalty is a good quality. you seem to suggest it would be better if morales tried to impress the neocons in washington by not going to cuba and caracas..i think its neither, better to do be friends with friends, and make policy thats best for bolivia regardless of what overbearing washington says. i think you are overreading morales’ meeting calendar. as for nationalizing poverty, as someone familiar with bolivian gas policies, bolivia and bolivians made more money off its gas sector PRIOR to privatization and not after the foreign investment blitz…bolivia’s nationalization, which is not the same as chile’s nationalizing copper in the allende era, is not exprorpiation but justice — raising royalties to 50 percent will not break the back of their foreign investors (the gas companies will just raise an already too low gas price to restore their hefty profit margin) but it will and already is increasing bolivian govt. earnings to pay for much needed, functional social programs. bolivia’s morales does not propose kicking out the companies, there you have it, he is a capitalist promoter just like you.. finally, as someone who is an expert on chile, how can you not be in favor of bolivia taking greater control of its gas after the way chile has given away most of its copper to low paying, polluting mining companies the past few decades. fortunately, for chile, they did keep a big slice for themselves — codelco, a state copper company! yes, capitalist chile has a communist side to it to this day.. and good thing too considering the low revenues the national govt. earns from taxes and rapidly disappearing import tariffs…viva codelco, viva regalias bolivianas!!!
January 7th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
The communism/socialism/capitalism division sooo doesn’t tell us much about Latin American economies. Casteneda’s contempt for Chavez certainly should have extended not only to Fox, his ex boss, but to every president Venezuela has had for the last twenty years — in fact, the kind of neo-liberal socialism C. seems to like was best embodied in Andres Perez, the man who, with his mistress, stole as much as he was able to from Venezuela in the 90s, to almost no publicity from the U.S. press — in the same way that the U.S. press gives disapproving and massive publicity to Chavez’s “dictatorial” traits and ignores Columbia’s Uribe changing the constitution so he can succeed himself and Uribe’s alliance with para-military rightwing cocaine growers who recently pushed through a sweet non-extradition pact with the government. Andres is a Cooper/Casteneda democracy extender par excellence, understanding that a strong economy requires massive privatization, followed by massive capital flight, and threaded with the most delightful corruption imaginable.
But of course, the real danger is: Evo Morales!
The Washington Consensus since 1980, with its ludicrous idea that you can strip human capital investment to the bone and create Asian tigers out of Latin American countries — and idea that C. has supported pretty vigorously — has mired the majority of the Latin American population at wage levels that haven’t really lifted since the seventies. And gee, all that state intervention and stuff that those terrible, terrible Soviet inspired people were doing — that Import substitution stuff — well, somehow it made Latin American countries grow faster than they ever did before or since. But let’s keep that under our hat, shall we? Cause it is communist and just like Cuba.
Anyway, past the bs, surely Morales shouldn’t posture about being Uncle Sam’s worst nightmare — that is irresponsible and stupid rhetoric — but he should consider how to do what any sensible country does and nationalize the country’s most valuable primary product — natural gas — while allowing some private investment in it. In Russia, this course has turned the indicators around from the joyride to the bottom of the shock therapy so evidently beloved by Cooper’s good friend. In fact, Kuwait, which has been brilliant in its management of oil, politely backed out of a U.S. sponsored plan to privatize last year. Casteneda no doubt thinks privatizing Mexico’s oil industry would join the world class success of the Salinas economy — the bankruptcy of the financial structure, the state takeover of debts as you shift even more money to the wealthy, and the erosion of Mexico’s shaky international status as it competes with China for rock bottom wages, getting rid of any investment in education, health, and environment whatsoever.
But the main thing to remember here is — we got to stick it to the Berkeley coffee house liberals! Why, Latin American politics is only an excuse to talk about what the gringos are doing! Cooper is doing a heckava job at that.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
I wonder if Hugo Chavez is really an old-style lefty demagogue or a guy with a real economic weapon in his hands.
January 7th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Roger, that’s simply ridiculous. Forget about me, btu to lump Castaneda together with Andes Perez, or to pretend that Castaneda is somehow aligned with him or soft on him is to reveal vast, immeasurable ignorance.
After four decades now on the left I unfortunatelty continue to be doumbfounded by how for too many others it’s simply impossible to refyte someone’s arguments on their merits. Instead, there’s always some baseless innuendo throw in i.e. that if so-in-so believes X then he MUST also be in league with Bush, Andres Perez, Wolfowitz, satan or fill-in-the-blank. How fucking wearisome, discouraging and boring.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
“So how is it possible that the people who are being exploited the most are the least cognizant of their own exploitation? Those working-class roots need some heavy duty watering—because there is a serious lack of consciousness out there. Many of these workers voted for Bush!”
Bring out the vanguard! oh wait, we’ve already got them – those that Josh appropiately identified.
Just curious Eleanore, have you ever investigated the possibility that those whom you deem so out of touch, have actually considered your proposals? And further, have you considered the possibility that they might reject them for entirely valid reasons?
Marc, what is it that you think a Bushiod would find so objectionable with Castaneda’s piece? Seems insightfully straight forward to me.
January 7th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
El Pueblo Unido…Will Never Eat A Cheeto !!!!
Brillaint, Reg!
January 7th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Guillermo; All good points. I am not opposed to Morales’ policies on natural resources. I support them. Castaneda is clearly very down on Morales and has probably been following him closer than I have. I remain with an open if skeptical view.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
” Have you ever investigated the possibility that those whom you deem so out of touch, have actually considered your proposals? And further, have you considered the possibility that they might reject them for entirely valid reasons?”
Is your name Bains or Brains?
That certainly was a problem during the last election– workers voting against their own self-interest! That Pit-bull Rove was par excellence at manipulating the publics’ psyche
1. Two thousand two hundred dead American soldiers in Iraq (probably really 5,000—they don’t count the dead in route to hospitals in Germany)
2. Fifteen thousand eight hundred four wounded American Soldiers
3. Thirty seven million living in poverty
4. Forty five million without health-care insurance
5. Forty-four million adults are functionally illiterate—lowest level of literacy
6. Fifty million adults have limited literacy skills —second lowest level of competency skills
7. Less than 10% of the population in need of literacy is being reached. A functionally illiterate adult is unable to fill out an employment application, follow written instructions, or read a newspaper. If they are confronted with printed materials, adults without basic literacy skills cannot function effectively.
8. One hundred and fifty thousand Hurricane Katrina evacuees are still living in hotel rooms—they will be forced to “evacuate†these rooms in another month.
9. On September 21 the EPA exempted thousands of facilities from reporting toxic releases by eliminating the TRI (Toxic release Inventory)—no data will be collected and disclosed for years. There has been an eleven percent increase since 2002 in persistent bioaccumuative toxins (PBTs), these chemicals include lead, mercury and dioxin. These toxins can build up in our bodies and cause disease and death.
10. Because of NAFTA, the manufacturing sector lost 2.85 million jobs during the period of 2000 to 2003 and from 2000 to 2003, payroll employment in manufacturing fell by 16.2%–this is the largest decline since the end of World War II.
11. The appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts and the nomination of judge Samuel Alito (both are ultra-conservative and members of the Federalist Party) to the Supreme Court. Appointments that will effect future constitutional decisions regarding race, gender and class for possibly the next 30 years.
12. Tax cuts for the richest Americans, while simultaneously cutting programs for the working-class and poor. The congress calls this “Budget Reconcilliation.†I call this UNFAIR!
January 7th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Well Eleanore, your long non-answer to a rather simple question strongly suggests, contrary to your declarations of plebian credentials, that you are indeed, a resident of the leftist class that Josh so well identified.
If I were a Bushiod, I’d suggest that you bolster your efforts to ‘water’ the roots of the uninformed working class, seeing as it has worked so well for your side lately.
but because I’m an atheist neo-libertarian who understands that this country needs honest and viable counter-proposals to the ruling party, I’d recommend that you try to understand what really concerns the middle and working class (that really is left out in consideration by our oh-so-illustrious congress), rather than what you think ought to concern them.
January 7th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Bains,
As an Atheist libertarian what is your social concerns—the inculcation of false evangelical religiosity into every aspect of our lives; so that the unsophisticated fall prey to BS messages which cloud your vision about what true values are rather than the “con-man†values, which makes hypocritical judgments about personal issues regarding homosexuality and a women’s right to choose.
Or are you concerned about the rampant ‘data mining†that is so common now at the NSA—as a so-called libertarian I am sure you feel that privacy is correlative to democracy.
And as a libertarian—education would be an issue of concern, so if 50 million people are illiterate–can a FREE SOCIETY EXIST? Is knowledge not power or is that statement to cliché for your libertarian affectations.
Is the outsourcing of technical jobs by the millions to countries in Asia not a concern for a Atheist libertarian—can a democracy remain when the only job is slinging hamburgers at Burger King or working as a sales associate at Wal-Mart? Would those be the professions that you would aspire to?
And as an Atheist—we can assume that you don’t prey to God—so if you become ill and have no health insurance who will you prey to so that you don’t go bankrupt—maybe Chase Manhattan Bank will answer your prayers.
January 7th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Marc.
About Castaneda: I like some of his work. Utopia Unarmed is really a brilliant book.
But that doesn’t mean that Castaneda isn’t following a familiar path. And yes, that path is parallel to Andres Perez.
You can look up Andres Perez in Factiva and find all kinds of praise for his “new pragmatism.†The man was all about privatization. He was all about paying back Venezuela’s debt. As one American reporter put it, admiringly, “Ideological fervor has given way to hard-nosed technocratic jargon. Even veteran populist leaders such as President Carlos Andres Perez of Venezuela, “renewed” socialists such as Chilean finance minister Carlos Ominami, and institutes linked to state-oriented development theories have adopted the vocabulary of austerity and private initiative.†This was Patricia Constable in 1991.
And here is the kind of things Casteneda was saying in the nineties: “”The first fight is to keep economic stability. But after that it will be necessary to confront fiscal reform, modernization of state administration and the social crisis,” Castaneda said.â€
And this is the kind of thing Casteneda was doing the double aughts. From a Foreign Affairs article, 2001:
“This past April, Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) — long Mexico’s fiercest critic and a man not known for his internationalist credentials — took an unusual trip. Helms went to Mexico City with colleagues in tow, where he convened the first-ever meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on foreign soil. The death of one-party rule in Mexico, Helms declared, had initiated “a new era of cooperation [with the United States] on matters such as immigration, drugs, trade, and the promotion of human rights in Cuba.”
The senators’ visit and the language that accompanied it would have been inconceivable barely a year ago — as would have Helms’ fast friendship with Mexico’s new foreign minister, a self-proclaimed “man of the left” named Jorge Castaneda. For decades, the U.S.-Mexico relationship was a wary one, characterized by mutual distrust and only reluctant cooperation. But that is now changing. With the advent of democratic government, Mexico is turning its back on its history of isolationism and its fiercely noninterventionist foreign policy. The country has begun to look beyond its borders, trying to spur development and help resolve problems throughout Latin America while pursuing a robust partnership with the United States — a neighbor with which Mexico was once at odds on nearly every issue.â€
Foreign Affairs seems to be an excellent channel for your friend. In 2003, he wrote an article in which he contemplates Latin America. For instance, there is Colombia. There he recommends that the US do some things to provide political cover for Uribe as he fights FARC – the only paramilitary group that Castaneda associates with cocaine growing.
“Other countries, not just in the region but also in Europe, could also help Colombia by isolating the FARC internationally, as Mexico did by closing down the FARC’s office in Mexico City. Governments should also investigate potential ties between the FARC and other regional players, such as Cuba. Not only would such outside involvement improve the prospects for negotiating success, but it would also provide political cover for Uribe in what can only be a bitter and bloody struggle “
After the friendship with Helms, the cooperation with Fox, and the praise of Uribe, yes, I think the parallels with Andres Perez come into focus. Casteneda’s friend Uribe today is simply glorying in the political cover given him by D.C., his agreement with AUC (unmentioned, of course, by Castaneda, who has bigger fish to fry — Farc seeming to be the only organization he associates with cocaine dealing), and the “victory for democracy”, as Uribe put it, that is allowing him to bring paramilitaries in Bogota’s suburbs while the Supreme Court’s overturning the rules on presidential second terms allows him to run again. Funny how Chavez’ constitutional finagling gets the microscopic treatment, while Uribe gets political cover.
Sorry, though, if this bores you.
January 7th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
bains: “because I’m an atheist neo-libertarian”
Does that make you a disciple of Virginia Postrel, Ayn Rand or both?
Long live militant, Wilsonian libertarianism.
Rothbard is rolling over in his grave.
January 8th, 2006 at 6:36 am
bains: “because I’m an atheist neo-libertarianâ€
Is that anything like social democratic libertarians of war?
Yeah, I love these new fandangled libertarians.
Socialize democracy, through war, the libertarian way!
January 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Well, Roger. It DOES bore me. The selection and juxtaposition of anecdotes u choose wilfuly ignore the big picture.
The Mexican govt under the PRI was slavishly pro-US yet postured — I repeat postured– as an indepedent and slight anti US force in foreign policy.
Castaneda’s policy was, on the one hand, to truly enhance Mexico’s hemispheric role and to DROP the pretense of being pro-Cuban etc etc. Castaneda’s goal was to build a btter relationship with the US in order to finally negotiate a reasonable border/immigration policy that would benefit Mexico and Mexicans. He failed thanks mostly to 911 which blew away the entire discussion.
Anyways, there is no debate with you. Once you raised Andres Perez as some sort of allw of Jorge’s or of mine you forfeited any right to be taken seriously.
In the end, you are correct. We are all slug lackeys of the IMF and Wolfowitz.
January 8th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Marc, wow, this is how you debate? You and I must have gone through different debate programs in high school. Your debating coach must have said, if the opposing team makes six points, drop all of them, pound on the table, and pout terrifically.
However, this debate, in the real world — ie in Latin America and Mexico — will certainly not go the way you think it is going to go. At least, that would be my prediction, especially if yours is typical of the intellectual firepower being brought to bear on the anachronistic, “castro-ite” left. As I made pretty clear, I don’t support nationalizations for ideological reasons or Cuban style dictatorship for any reason, but I certainly don’t think adopting Jesse Helm’s tactics and supporting Uribe is the only other position on the ideological map. I am glad that you brought in IMF and Wolfowitz, although what Wolfowitz has to do with this is anybody’s guess. I know why you are bored, Marc. You are debating with shadows.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:40 am
“It has merely abolished private enterprise and reserved the entrpreneurial role for an unelected and unaccountable state — one by the way totally rotted out by corruption.”
great note, Marc. Too bad so few on the Left understand the need for entrepreneurs to reduce poverty — poor people need jobs.
The failure of Unions in America is a failure of the collected workers in developing worker friendly entrepreneurs.
The world needs “Employment Maximizing Companies” — which I’ll write about later.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
The failure of Unions in America is a failure of the collected workers in developing worker friendly entrepreneurs.
Yes, clearly the mania for increasing share price by cutting benefits and jobs, increasing CEO compensation and perks (regardless of performance), golden parachute packages were all the fault of the workers WHO MORE THAN OFTEN THAN NOT HAVE ZERO REPRESENTATION on the boards of businesses, as opposed to the boards being filled largely with people who haven’t punched a clock since they were out of college.
Yeah, that’s the failure of organized labor. Poppycock.
Of all the reactionary, sweeping, flatulent generalizations that you have posted here, that may be one of the lamest.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Too bad few intelligent people in the U.S. fail to see the differences between Venezuela and Cuba, and give absolutely no credit to the Venezuelans and democratically-elected Chavez, suggesting he is just another Castro with oil.
Chavez has embarked in a massive program to finance small and medium-size businesses, and encouraging the unemployed to form cooperatives for production and services.
Instead of nationalizing, they are experimenting with putting state-controlled companies under worker’s control (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4155936.stm). This is something the Cubans oppose because it breaks the vertical chain of command, and leads to debate and disagreements.
Thousands of shanty town residents have received titles to the land they have occupied for decades, becoming legal owners (and able to say “get out of my property!”), with which they can apply for a loan in the bank (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1551).
Instead of injecting money into big hospitals where the supplies and equipment are stolen by doctors who also work at private clinics, they have created a decentralized network of community clinics where communities provide security, transportation, and support for the doctors who live in or near the clinic.
Organized communities, not government bureaucrats, are in charge of much of the implementation of all these social programs.
Internationally, Chavez is embarking in an aggressive push for regional integration and have signed a number of trade deals and partnerships with other countries.
While some talk about Independent World Television (iwtnews.com), Venezuela partnered with other Latin American countries and launched Telesur to counter act Atlanta-based CNN and Miami-based Univision.
Venezuela has re-started a national railroad network (halted by pro-US presidents lobbied by GM) including four subway systems being build simultaneously. (http://www.latintrade.com/dynamic/index.php?pg=site_en/procurement/venezuela.html)
On the other hand, is Chavez floating in petro-dollars as many argue? During his 7 years in office, per capita income per year averages just $580, less than two dollars per person per day. (See http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2006/01/myth-busting-how-much-money-does.html).
Instead of issuing a decree to declare “socialism”, Chavez has called for a national and international debate to chart the path towards it.
Will anybody see the differences? Is this more of the same?
On the other hand, Chile’s economic expansion has to do more with a concious and very well organized effort to find markets overseas for their products, and increase local production to meet that demand. There is no miracle there, it is something all countries should do without privatizing everything.
I believe the Venezuelans need all the support from progressives in the US and help them without being uncunditional fans, but offering constructive criticism whenever is necessary.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:42 am
Eddie800 pokerxnj
August 26th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Dave…
Interesting topic… I’m working in this industry myself and I don’t agree about this in 100%, but I added your page to my bookmarks and hope to see more interesting articles in the future…
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Craps…
consenting sick:stopwatch reactionary ports chest Roulette [url=http://www.atroulette.com/#]Roulette[/url] http://www.atroulette.com/# …
June 29th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Kareem…
Getting Started in Game Creation IÂ’ve always loved video games, ever…
June 29th, 2007 at 5:27 am
Simeon…
Children’s use of the computer screen a whole new world beckoned…
July 10th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Irwin Bash…
I know I am fearful of another birth. So much so that I went on birth control for the first time in almost 10 years!…
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
jeu du casino gratuit…
C” jeu poker gratui pc game casino java black jack poker game deutsch télécharger gratuitement des jeux de poker…
March 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Do you guys have a recommendation section, i’d like to suggest some stuff
August 18th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
This is an awesome blog here! I just added it to my favorites.
I’ve got a poker player fan page over on Facebook. If you wanted to check it out: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Poker-Players-Only/136818223026737