"If you do not live to serve, not serve to live" is the motto
blogs
Julio Carmona (edited with the collaboration of John Victor Alfaro):
http://www. vosquedepalabrasvives.blogspot.com /
http://www.mesterdeobreria.blogspot.com/
Noam Chomsky is a man touched by an inexhaustible curiosity. Should added that it is an engaged intellectual. This seems obvious but it is not. Unlike many other intellectuals, not only is able to denounce injustices, absurdities and atrocities committed in the name of U.S. national interest or the principles of the free world, such as democracy and the market, but also to lock long dialogues with those who differ some of their political views, without this undermining the fabric of conversation, but quite the opposite. More than his radical ideas that occasionally stir the bile of conservative public opinion, what is striking is Chomsky's almost superhuman ability to pursue rational understanding of almost any problem embedded galaxies and universes of information in which any other would drown without the slightest chance of survival. For example, when discussing with him about a given topic, is Latin America, Iran, China or the United States "refers to the call to daily newspapers in Mexico, London, Tehran, Islamabad, and the latest super-specialized journals, reviews political or local polls. Also shown is eager to receive any article or book by return mail with a sensitive intelligence criticize, not to overlook their strengths, weaknesses and contradictions. His conversation always zigzags and opens many twists and turns of simultaneous learning, but when it seems that has already gone too far, back to the origin point by tying all the loose ends and catching, with admirable clarity the true spirit of a hidden or hard to understand. When this happens, we must ask you, please be brief. He responds with some mischief that when your grandchildren ask you anything they put a clause: "Please, give us only a conference of five minutes." But you must write it down, rarely succeeds.
At 82 of age, political commitment is not declining. I might even say that while other scholars are content to blow the trumpets of the Apocalypse, he seeks and few scattered signs of hope to impart some coherence and warn of the dangers that lurk. So his latest book, Hopes and Prospects (published by Haymarket Books) is dedicated to Latin America and says the future could reinvented in this region of the planet.
This interview took place in three stages of the fall 2010 and winter of 2011. For reasons of length, this version focuses on socialism today, the change in Latin America and relations with the United States. At the end are attached two facts news with hot opinions about the riots in the Middle East, including Egypt and Libya. The environmental problem in some way through whole conversation. But inevitably, Chomsky looks at many other topics on which his restless attention never rests.
Socialism yesterday and as always The term socialism has become a wildcard confusing that anyone can use at will. You even said that all countries have been called socialists were in fact anti-socialist. If so, what does socialism today?
When people talk of socialism, particularly state control of speech production and natural resources. That's what you can call it whatever, but not what socialism is meant by tradition. There are many versions of socialism, but all share a core value: those who produce should have control of production. Workers must control the factories, farmers should control the land they work and their communities. Seen socialism and is an extreme form of democracy. But in reality, there is nothing similar in the so-called socialist countries. In fact, the Bolsheviks, who were the right wing of the Socialists took power in 1917, establishing the pattern of what would follow, and moved quickly to remove the genuine form of socialism that had been tried before and which were the leaven of the soviets, factory councils verbigracia or revolutionary activities of the societies agricultural. These forms were weakened and dismantled quickly, until it almost could not function. The Constituent Assembly was eliminated because it would have transferred power to the grassroots peasants and workers. The Bolsheviks did not want and, indeed, that was the reason I created the work army (armies of work) under the terms of the leader. And this is the opposite of socialism. The Bolsheviks nationalized industries and resources. In that sense, eliminated private capital and that generated a very negative view of socialism.
Now they had their reasons and the main one was the dangerous international situation. Had been invaded by the West and based their actions on principles and concepts of Marxism, but in this case were ideas that Marx himself did not hold. The alleged Marxist idea was that a country can not get to socialism until they go through certain stages, the first of which is industrialization, which would come after the organization of the proletariat would take matters into their own hands to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. Russia differed in that and other aspects: it was a backward peasant society, essentially a colonial society, but unusually powerful, with a large military force, even under the tsars. Furthermore, there was development in certain fields and cultivated an elite and sophisticated. This combination is not surprising. You need only look at Latin America, where it is the same and there is an elite with a rich cultural tradition. The Soviets wanted to industrialize Russia, given their circumstances, they thought they would by authoritarian leadership. Implemented this way most of the structure that later produced the horrors of Stalin. The so-called socialist countries adopted variants of these structures, although there were differences as in Mao's China. Dispute
did Mao's socialism less bloody than that of Stalin.
No less bloody, indeed. But if you look closely you'll notice that the characterization of China in the West is not correct. Modern economists say the radical advance China's economic train has only been possible because it is mounted on rails solids Mao. That is evidenced by the Nobel laureate in economics, Amartya Sen, in a study whose first part has been praised but the second part is almost unmentionable in the West because it compares China and India between 1947 and 1979, which makes sense because both countries at 47 became independent and 79 was the year of great turning point of China's economic reform. By studying mortality during the famine of 1958, Sen called it a political famine. Not because there was a deliberate attempt to cause it, but because the totalitarian system was such that information about of what was going on did not come to the decision-making and when they knew it was too late. In that sense, it was a political crime.
But even counting those thirty millions of victims, it happens that in India a hundred million people killed by famine, simply because capitalism democráctico of India was not instituted social reforms that would prevent such a disaster, as did China with systems rural doctors walk and other programs. That, after all, made a difference of seventy millions of victims. In the words of Sen, India got so many skeletons in the closet every 8 years as China did in the period of the great leap forward, his greatest shame. During the Cultural Revolution also committed many atrocities but, apparently, the general conditions in rural areas also improved. So it is an ambivalent history.
Do you think it was worth the experience in historical terms?
I can not draw conclusions from a few conversations, but occasionally I hear people very critical of Mao in their government tells how many people were killed in a bloody. So it's a complex issue. What can not be disputed is what happened in the capitalist and democratic India in the same period. And if you use these global calculations see the massacres of capitalist democracy are huge, but we do not.
Returning to the center of the issue. What we mean by socialism?
In essence, socialism is what traditionally was. The producers, who are the majority of the population, should have control over production. But when producers talk about I do not mean only to factory workers. A producer may be a software engineer or a teacher universitario.Y, actually, college is the only institution that approaches this idea that producers control what they produce. So the producers must control whatever the production unit which they operate. Should make decisions and the same should be said of community control in their own operation. These conceptions of Marxism largely coincide with anarcho-syndicalism. In fact, workers whose uprisings have led to anti-totalitarian struggles syndicalist model, as is the case of the Solidarity movement in Poland. The Hungarian Revolution also came from a movement with these characteristics. It happens automatically when people try to overthrow their masters. These are the central elements of socialism. But existing socialism or approaches to these elements. In fact, it's almost just the opposite. The United States has more control workers on production in Russia!
The point is that its design departs from the traditional concept of working class and its representatives. It also remains to traditional institutions like the state, which historically has been proclaimed the principal agent of socialism.
Yes, that is valid for existing socialism, ie a type of socialism that is virtually indistinguishable from state capitalism. To understand it should analyze the case of the United States, recognized as the ultimate capitalist society. And it's not at all a capitalist society in the traditional sense!
Let's see how this country came be the richest and most advanced society? However, economists such as Adam Smith had advised at the time that the United States. What kind of advice they gave? They offered him the World Bank and International Monetary Fund Latin America. Smith advised the U.S. government to deepen its comparative advantages. You are good at farming and exporting hides, he said. Do not try to compete with finished goods, because in England it is much more efficient. So to achieve the overall efficiency, must be exported in the primary sector and buy manufactured goods from England. He also advised the government not to monopolize natural resources. That was not a negligible issue if remember that oil nineteenth century was cotton, which was the core of the industrial revolution. United States produced a large share of global cotton and Smith said he did not monopolize it was economically harmful. Instead, the United States rose dramatically taxes on British textiles and was able to start their own textile industry, which is the original way to start industrialization. Later blocked the British steel industry, much higher than ours by then. The government even tried to monopolize the cotton was about to do. The Congress said: "If we can corner the cotton will Britain knees. " The example shows clearly that the process of development of this country was not capitalist development. And that continues until today with internet and computers. In conclusion, the U.S. is as capitalist and socialist Russia.
Now: The categories socialism and capitalism are ideological weapons, no descriptive terms, though there are certainly many differences between the Soviet version of state capitalism and the U.S. version. But neither is coming to terms with who they are identified in the ideological war. And if we examine one of the few places where they apply the term capitalism is Latin America, where capitalism was imposed a neoliberal version that closely follows the lines of Adam Smith. Just imagine what would have happened if America had followed these rules! Neoliberalism was created to be imposed in the Third World. There is nothing new: these ideas from the economic models created to subdue the colonies. Latin American hopes
You have pointed out that Latin America has challenged the hegemony of U.S. and global financial institutions that have slowed the advance of democracy in the region. In short, Latin Americans, in his words, we are in a sort of post-neoliberal moment. Why do you think the future can be forged in Latin America?
I do not think that Latin America is a utopia. What I say is that it has begun to emerge from a very hard story to a stage where it has some possibilities. That does not make it to Utopia. In the past 200 years, Latin America has tried many times to get ahead but could not due particularly to two problems. First by the lack of integration between countries, because even the road system is different between them. Also because countries have been aimed almost imperial powers in every way, from the banks in which people invest their money to the university where he sends their children. This complex is being overcome and have taken certain steps towards integration. The latest example is the Community of Latin American and Caribbean (ECLAC), created in February 2010, with all American countries except the United States and Canada, a project symbolically significant and potentially important. If your organization takes some real functions in the integration, will be comparable to other initiatives such as UNASUR, the Banco del Sur or Mercosur ... In my eyes, integration is a prerequisite for independence.
The second problem is internal. All countries in Latin America have a horrendous social structure in which there is a small sector of the population, mostly white, which is extremely rich and is surrounded by an enormous misery. That has not been solved but at least now it is taken into account. Lula's social programs are not the solution, but are an improvement. The same applies to the missions in Venezuela.
The third point is the emergence of indigenous movements. We know that these movements are a double-edged sword. For example, in Ecuador, where indigenous people wonder why they should give up their way of life for motorists to clog the streets of New York, or in Colombia, where farmers and indigenous people wonder why they should sacrifice their habitats by mining .
Although I tend to sympathize with those questions, I know they are not trivial matters. A country has the resources and be able to use them. The problem is how to get it to use for the benefit of the population, trying to generate the least possible destruction of the environment and preventing the benefits go only to international investors or wealthy locals. At least these problems are being addressed in a different way than in the past, when every time someone claimed was crushed.
Another key element is that there is a south-south relationship that did not exist. As evidence, China is now one of the largest investors in the region, surpassing, in places rich in resources, the United States. If you look back at the U.S. foreign policy, you will see that the control of Latin America has been almost a dogma. The Council on Foreign Relations was believed that if not controlled in Latin America could not control the world. Well, we do not control. The most notable example is Brazil. Brazil and Turkey, another country that has escaped from U.S. control, banded together to negotiate a deal with Iran about the nuclear issue. Obama saw it with reluctance, but even so they did. This happens in other parts because global control is declining and Latin America is an important piece. That opens up possibilities that the region did not have before. How to handle these possibilities, remains unclear.
What risks and challenges do you see when you think of Latin American hopes?
The risk is that the structures that have hindered the development of Latin American societies still exist. The warlords and warlordism, for example. Or the fact that development is taking place to continue based on the extraction of raw materials. Even in Chile, considered the jewel in the crown, the economy is still dependent on copper and generally remains subject to a geographic determinant that leads her to produce fruit and wines to the U.S. market. Beyond that, there seems to be clear and consistent effort to overcome the traditional system. Brazil's economy also depends on raw materials extracted for Russia and China, although the country has a significant industrial base. The other problem is to introduce and consolidate a functioning democracy in these countries to overcome the dire poverty and help people to participate politically and socially.
Since you mentioned the problems that brings the warlordism of the democratic system, I'd like your current opinion on Venezuela. What is your assessment of the XXI century socialism and Hugo Chávez as a leader?
Venezuela is a mixed story. Some policies, such as missions, I think that make sense. There has been a significant reduction of poverty may now be growing again. Moreover, the fact that we could win the military coup and a great strike capitalist industrial and business sector seem significant progress. There are great problems of criminal violence, corruption and authoritarian control that must be confronted and addressed. This happens in international initiatives such as Petrocaribe very constructive and the South Bank. So there are positive things, but there are also dangers.
I ask you to talk a little more danger, as it relates to important aspects of democracy.
I know they are important issues, but do not know and I'd rather not get into subjects that do not I know. There are fundamental problems that must be confronted, as I said. In Bolivia there have been substantial changes have been driven bottom-up social structure. In Venezuela, the changes have been guided from above. The changes that are imposed from above are inherently dangerous, no one doubts. So it is necessary to move toward situations in which the missions, cooperatives and other social programs have real authority and not just to them by the government. Theoretically Chávez thinks so, but that thought has to be realized.
You have shown a constant concern for Colombia. What about the legacy of Uribe and the new government of Juan Manuel Santos?
When I was in Colombia a few months ago, the Ombudsman took me to visit some villages isolated and dangerous near La Vega, Cauca. I went there because the people of the region dedicated a forest in memory of my late wife, Carol. In this region, the villagers were trying to block the efforts of mining companies, with their holding arbitrary, polluted water sources. For example, and this is something I do not know, apparently the government is trying to privatize water. And it does take into account the lesson from the fiasco of Bolivia. That is, not as a national effort, but in small areas, isolating communities and canceling its capacity for joint action. Against that, the people of many communities I visited are being organized and has very sophisticated water programs, primarily to resist the privatization and the destruction of virgin forests. It's a trend around the world resist pressure from multinational companies. They can do, is to be seen. At the same time, people of Defense told me that violence has resurfaced, in part, they say, by the action of the FARC, which has military and paramilitary response. Father Javier Giraldo, an incredible person, he was with us doing research for a book about what happened with peace communities like San Jose and Apartado, which, as you may know, have been attacked and intimidated for a long period of time. Even the last time I was there a few years ago, San Jose, which is the largest, was under siege. The situation has worsened, so has virtually eliminated these islands of peace. I think that does not look good.
To return to your question, human rights groups with whom I spoke expected that Santos has a relaxation. This I can not say because it comes from a secondary source, but the hope is that while Santos continue to implement some policies of Uribe, it is assumed that social class he is a oligarch while Uribe comes from a middle class of Antioquia, and it needs no underground connections with the paramilitaries and drug trafficking that occurred in the Uribe government, the less brutal in human rights and more open to the arrangements.
Well, Santos has not been more flexible, at least with the guerrillas. Here we have the annihilation of Mono Jojoy, no less than military chief lasFarc. However, it seems to move even within the institutional framework. Luce
then like I should seek some kind of political settlement with the FARC.
What could be the role of Colombia in the Latin American regional dynamics?
In this regard, I think the court's objection to the agreement on U.S. military bases can be significant. That deal angered many countries. With the exception of Alan Garcia, the opposition was widespread and even Unasur made a statement against. Not objected to the national implications of the agreement, but its extra-territorial aspects, namely the fact that the U.S. wanted to use the bases to gather information and make enforcement work. That's the part that the countries of the region felt threatening, but did not appear explicitly but that was the interpretation made by the United States. If the spot is completely removed, I think that will help Colombia to be more integrated into South America and, of course, be an important step to leave out the intervention of U.S. military forces in the region, since the only other U.S. military forces offshore properties are currently in Honduras.
Building has played a controversial issue, can I ask what is the current state of relations between the U.S. and Latin America.
Latin America is moving towards some form of integration, which, as I said, is the prerequisite for genuine independence. This is important because it is the first time in 500 years, given these conditions. No I know if I get to come out, but I think that if CELAC becomes something more than a project on paper, can be very positive. The same can be said of the proposal to decriminalize some drugs conducted by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, headed by former presidents Ernesto Zedillo, Fernando Enrique Cardoso and Cesar Gaviria and bringing together other former presidents. If Latin America coincides out of that destructive war against drugs, could be an important advance in this field. Of course this would mean a major educational effort in the United States. To give an example, I repeat something I heard this morning on National Public Radio while driving to here. Discussed what happens in Mexico and the statements of Hillary Clinton on an insurgency that threatens the United States. There were a handful of experts in the field. It was very interesting to hear them, but did not mention the only three things that really matter. First, no mention of weapons of Mexican drug traffickers coming from the United States. Second, not focused, but he was referred in passing, that the demand from the United States. And third, they forgot to say that free trade agreements are a big mess, especially the FTA with Canada and Mexico, as they have pushed the peasants off their land and displaced crops like corn for the production of opium. A few weeks ago I was in Mexico and people linked to La Jornada newspaper told me that there are large areas to the north dedicated to production, including areas controlled by the military. The bottom line is that, apparently, 25% of the Mexican economy depends on drug traffickers. Likewise dependent on remittances sent from abroad, which means that the productive economy and reduced functional. Even multinational maquiladoras, which do not meet national standards of the productive economy are leaving the country due to competition from China. None of that was mentioned in the program, so the perception of the phenomenon that we have as Americans is very limited.
other hand, according to several economic studies the decline of quality of life with Calderon is terrible. I am not speaking only of the levels of nutrition, but the fall in wages. It is also crucial to understand the progress of the drug economy. At the World Economic Forum has discussed another phenomenon derived: the paradox that in a country with such violence, the stock market is skyrocketing, reaching record highs recently. Actually, that speaks of two Mexicos, one rich and one poor. There is nothing paradoxical about it. It's something that has been happening since the eighties neoliberal reforms split the country. The number of billionaires has risen almost as fast as the rate of poverty. This explains the phenomenon of Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world, and it is understood that the bag he is doing well, because U.S. investors assume that a privatized sectors, the billionaires and the narcos will continue to go well. Meanwhile, the population collapses.
Finding solutions to these problems requires recognizing that there are and we do not see. So we have before us a long way to go. Hope versus catastrophe
And this road seems even longer if we take into account the new immigration laws that criminalize immigrants.
Not to mention, of what comes with the Tea Party in Congress. I do not know to what extent you follow these guys. You can not go right because it will be self-defeating. It is as if the country were assaulted by a group of lunatics.
Condoleezza Rice says it is healthy for the country to have such debates.
That is your position! Well, then forget about the war against drugs and the arms race. Currently, almost all of the Republican Party thinks that the human being has nothing to do with global warming. Think this is a death sentence for the species. If the U.S. does nothing and if the GOP decides that all those liberals and scientists looking for grants to study the phenomenon forget the money, we can go saying goodbye. In the case of financial crisis, has a sense that large corporations ignore systemic risk, though economists know that ignoring it leads to crises become more frequent. These are fundamental market inefficiencies. Any economist learns in the first years of market transactions to ignore the external factors almost of necessity. If someone tries to estimate its impact will be out of business because competitors will not. So it's almost an institutional need of the market system. In the case of financial crisis, we can say ok, is the government to give financial aid. But when the executives decided to ignore externalities of climate destruction will be no one to throw them a lifeline. The fragility of the species is not a factor you can ask for financial aid.
As we entered the theme of survival, then how to deal with the crisis of civilization in which we find ourselves?
... not a small question!
Please give us just a conference of five minutes ...
One big change has to happen in America.
Is America the main character? Why?
has to be. We are by far the richest, most powerful and creates more damage to nature. And if we do nothing here, what Europe can do will help but will not make much difference. Emerging countries will not do much because they need to fuel their growth. China, in fact, is doing more than the United States. When Texas tried to mount a wind mills, had to go look at China. What happened? The government blocked the initiative. The U.S. green investment in China is higher than he does in his own territory and in Europe. The reason is simple. The U.S. government complains of China in the World Trade Organization. But here is responsible for developing the structure for green investments and has not done. It leaves it private investors will not do either, because in China they can do for much less money. It's shocking. Obama's government is threatening to throw over to China with WHO for doing exactly what we should do: an industrial policy, state-led course, to create the foundations for a sustainable economy. So we have to stop, they say, because it violates our sacred principles of the market. And, well, you know, the irony is incredible. But again I must say, the population is ignored. And economists, academics and the media are to blame because they do not want to explain that so does our economy. Could you
enunciate some points we should keep in mind?
America needs a cultural revolution.
What do you mean?
A change in the way we understand the attitudes, perceptions and factual knowledge. The Tea Party is very telling in this regard. We are a society that is constantly being measured by surveys. Although many surveys do not add much, there are others that show important things. For example, studies show that there are people who are in favor of small government and lower taxes. In social terms are in favor of more investment in education, health, infrastructure. In this may not be different the Swiss, but do not want governments and taxes. What then? We call this the "double dip" to maintain two completely contradictory ideas in mind and believe both at the same time. That perception facing the country. Some people say: "I do not care what happens in this country." But if you consider those who participate in surveys you will see that you want to discuss these issues. Last year I was in Mexico City and then went to California. I went from a poor country to one of the richest areas of the world. In Mexico, the Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), which has a hundred thousand students, is free. Not the best in the world, but it's pretty good. Meanwhile in California, the public higher education system, which was one of the best in the world is being destroyed and privatized. What happens when Mexico, a poor country is able to maintain a system of quality public education, while California, a region rich, destroys one of the best education systems? Well, you get a lot of damage. If you have a high level education also have a high level competitive economy, because much of economic growth now occurring around the universities, where there are clusters of research, knowledge, innovation and development as MIT, Harvard, Berkley or Stanford. To some extent, the private sector that grows around these clusters is parasitic and benefits enormously from that college knowledge. So if you destroy the university system are putting at risk the private economic sector. But you have to do because you have to cut taxes. And see the irony is that economic studies show that the strongest advocates of tax cuts in California are those who benefit most from government subsidies.
Returning to the point, what would be the outline of what needs doing?
A massive education program within the United States, which led to a cultural revolution that makes people understand their circumstances and the consequences of their actions, leaving aside the dogmas and ideological prisons that constrain the possibility of developing sensitive and sensible policies. There is no reason for the United States is not a leader in the development of green technologies and sustainable development model. We have the facilities and resources permit without having to go to China for cheap labor. The opposite is patching, which is what we are doing.
post-imperial world
Almost ten years after the Sept. 11, the U.S. is the superpower that was, at least not politically and economically. What can you say about the role U.S. at present and near future?
After World War II, America had a position of power unparalleled in history. He was literally half the world's wealth and was in position to pursue ambitious goals that were outlined by Roosevelt planners and then implemented broadly: control a "large area" that included the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the ancient empire UK (including the incomparably oil-rich West Asia) and the industrial and commercial center of Eurasia. Over time, this power inevitably eroded. By 1970, the world was economically tripolar. Its major centers were for North America, United States, to Europe, Germany and France, and for East Asia, Japan. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a brief illusion of unipolarity and "end of history" but soon disbanded and now the global system is even more diverse and the United States less able to exercise control. That is a matter of great concern to planners, and often a considerable source of irrationality, as when, recently, the State Department warned China that it should fulfill its "international responsibilities" and obey the U.S. unilateral sanctions against Iran, which should have fun at the ruling class in China. In one dimension, the U.S. military power remains a reign supreme, but it is a very expensive benefit can not be sustained, particularly by decisions that have severely weakened the productive economy and encouraged the financial sector. The leaders of this country should be obliged, in the best-elect should be partners in a different world order.
traditional Marxism and other ideologies understand the shift towards a more just society in terms of revolution or disaster. How to make the idea of \u200b\u200bjustice less dependent on violent change?
Marx had a more nuanced. He seems to have thought that in parliamentary democracies the power of workers could be achieved by electoral processes. Aside their personal views, I see no basis in thought, or that of others seeking more justice and freedom, to exclude that possibility. However, it is idle to speculate. Whatever our situation, we should prefer nonviolent reform as possible, and questions about the use of violence should not even arise unless at some point iligítima authority seeks to maintain its power by force. And surely, whatever our long-term, we should do what we can to avoid a catastrophe, particularly in times like ours, a new moment in history in which the impending disaster could spell the end of the search for decent survival.
At 82 years you still denounce and fight. Tell me, what keeps you moving and do you think?
This summer I had the opportunity to witness some struggles of people facing huge threats and risks in different parts of the world, peasants and indigenous peoples in Colombia, Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Kurds in southeastern Turkey, and could also briefly join those from a relatively privileged position are given to those causes. These are only reasons to stay active and believe in hope for a better future.
Source: http://prodavinci.com/2011/03/01/las-esperanzas-de-noam-chomsky-y-dos-posdatas/
0 comments:
Post a Comment