30 / 12/2009
In 2009 we saw the rise of militarism and the end of the illusion Obama
x James Petras - La Haine :: More articles by this author / or: 
CX36 Interview: The Latin American economic crisis did not cause any radicalization of social movements, with the exception of Venezuela 
Comments CX36 Radio Centenario in Uruguay, the American sociologist, Prof. James Petras from the United States. Monday December 28, 2009. Www.radio36.com.uy
Chury: Petras good day, how are you?
Petras: Here we are, with winter but still with little snow and very cold. But in any case is typical for this time. And trying to make some reflections on the past year and what we can expect in the future.
Chury: I think if we count that is mission accomplished so I hear.
Petras: Well. At first we talked about what happened in the economy, which was catastrophic with the loss of tens of millions of jobs in the capitalist world, in Europe, U.S., Latin America and Africa and to a lesser extent in Asia. But the fact that the recession bottomed out this year does not mean that over the next year but could fall back again in a rush. But in any case shows for many people, and that's the most positive-capitalism does not work, can not meet the minimum economic conditions. There are hundreds of millions of people who reject at least, and I say that, "the model of neoliberal capitalism, the capitalism of the so-called free market.
Now, about the alternative, that is still pending because no clear definition and there is no political power to show that socialism is better, it could be a great leap forward. Then we have the prestige of a still born model and the other with the exception of Venezuela, where they have done well to various nationalizations and rejection of the militarist-imperialist war policy.
The second important point is the failure of the capitalist countries in their efforts reach an agreement to improve the environment in Copenhagen. But on the other hand, the fact that tens of thousands of people were there to protest and to begin the pressures from the South on another way to negotiate the problem, it is positive.
And third, we have seen the rise of militarism under Obama and the end of the illusion for many people Obama liberal progressive center-left, mujiquistas, were very excited about what it meant the election of Obama.
With the measures taken, thus channeling billions into Wall Street, but most of all its military intervention to increase troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan and attacking Yemen and worse, mounting a coup in Honduras, seven bases in Colombia, another strengthening of the Fourth Fleet in the Atlantic Ocean off to Latin America, it seems an indication that Washington has no alternative other than militarism. And that has led to a fairly broad rejection in Latin America, even among the rulers who are not much but at least against this extremism, the White House created a situation where Washington stood alone. Front
hit Honduras, Washington was the only regime in the hemisphere that would not admit it as a military coup, thwarted the possibility of the return of Zelaya, but left alone even though some governments opposing positions remain warm. The opposition led by Chavez obviously represents the feelings of millions in Latin America.
The seven military bases also represent another indication that Washington is planning an aggression against Venezuela. The installation succeeded unilateral rejection of most of the continent. I say almost everything because maybe one or two countries disagree. But again Washington is diplomatically alone.
That sounds good because the face of this military offensive, it makes people see the possibility of the return of the military dictatorships imposed so many killed, imprisoned and tortured. For this reason Obama has lost much of the sympathy that was and remains a hate figure as much as Bush. Maybe not as people but is the process, the direction for the future is Obama's speech and a change will not affect anyone.
could also say that in Latin America there is an extension and deepening of diversification of economic partners, particularly in Asia but also to the Middle East, showing that the bourgeois governments at least recognize that the current conditions there is profit in the sense made at some distance from the subordination to the U.S.
With the exception of Mexico, which is a broken country in every way, with influencing drug dealers even the government ministers and generals. Aside from Mexico, other countries have distanced themselves from a country that is no longer the main market in Brazil, Chile, Peru and perhaps in the future Argentina and Uruguay, although Argentina is not as linked with the United States.
is another indication that the global configuration changes are underway.
Other than that, about politics in Latin America could score two things. One is the weakening of the traditional right, a repudiation at the polls, leaving aside Chile. And second, the rise of social liberalism that is, moving from capitalism of the agro-mineral exporters and some manufacturing sectors. With high prices in much of the mining, gas, petroleum, metals, agribusiness grain, sugar, soy, have achieved income and support from sectors of the bourgeoisie to a victory for the center-left in Uruguay in Bolivia, which are really capitalist governments have huge presence of foreign capital.
In Uruguay, real estate and financial capital of the agricultural export sectors, including in the case of Bolivia with a government that got a very important support bourgeois sectors. In the south of La Paz, which was a bastion of right, Evo Morales won a majority for the first time and important contributors to its campaign of areas of Santa Cruz and elsewhere.
What is social liberalism? It merely indicates a welfare policy, programs against what they call extreme poverty within the structural parameters of capitalism. That indicates that the structures of class, inequality and wealth concentration will remain the same. And the left keeps talking about how ignorant they are left breakthroughs, which are not. They are what they are: capitalism with welfare programs. All this means that even the social movements that have caught the train to social liberalism, are no longer protagonists with their own agenda.
The same happens in Brazil and Argentina could say that there is no great difference. The period is a period, at best, "the struggles and the economic crisis in Latin America fell did not cause any radicalization at least from the social movements. The exception again is the relationship in Venezuela where the pressure of the working class resulted in several nationalizations in the steel industry, the electricity industry. The workers have got a role in corporate governance are not simply nationalized but with a change in management structure.
other hand we could say that there is fighting with great courage in countries and Colombia, for example, despite the killings by paramilitaries.
in Ecuador is very problematic because we have received criticism from social movements and on the other hand strap is still a politician with some popular support. There is an ambiguity in the case of Ecuador, with a liberal social policy with popular support as Evo Morales, but without a clear definition of strategic industries in the economy. We think in this situation for next year.
The greatest danger is the U.S. military posture. That is the great danger to the entire continent. The depth and breadth of this policy is a threat in the short term not a matter of thinking in the years ahead.
And here in America we have so many good news. There is an offensive in the health plan that is not benefiting the people. It is a plan to impose insurance but is very expensive for the poor and is managed by the private sector. That is the big fight and there is disappointment with Obama, including his popularity has fallen to 40% and still falling, but we have great expressions of rejection yet. There is much discontent but no national political leader.
That is the dilemma we face: disappointment and congressional elections next year. I have fear of two things: one that has a large abstention maybe we could say that is positive, leaving a choice between the two capitalist parties. But on the other hand I think if the Republican right is astute and takes a pseudo-populist discourse could regain near-majority in Congress and left with the far right in Congress and right on the White House. This is very possible if current trends continue this way.
What is the positive thing here in America?. The positive is that capitalism has not solved the problem of unemployment and eviction of people who can not meet the mortgage. And there are millions of people who feel insecure and question the system performance. But there is still much discontent in this reflection on socialism. As we had no social reference for many years at national level, in contrast to Europe, even where there is at least formally socialist alternative, we are missing here. And in that sense are things that are difficult to rectify.
On the issue of Middle East and the wars there, strongly influenced by the Zionist power in the American situation, we still have two things: a Zionist power in government with great force, but also a growing opposition to Zionism even in Jewish areas who are disgusted by this terrorism that is the war against Gaza and killing. There is a huge increase in rejection of Israel and Zionism, I do not know if among the majority but at least in relation to the past has grown a lot and that's positive here, even though the crimes of Israel and American support remain the two factors in this region.
The other is the problem that Washington has with countries like China and other dynamic that has not been compensated by an internal dynamic, then plan to increase aggression toward China at least verbally. Attacks and insults on his economic plan, his environmental plan, its relations with Iran, etc. There is a campaign front but not as direct or indirect, without considering the consequences. Because China owns more than one trillion five hundred billion in U.S. Treasury notes and if they want to discard the dollar would be in free fall ... There
adventurism in Washington that fails to management and repeats the same thing fails in Iraq and mounting a war in Afghanistan; fail to overthrow the Chavez government to topple then Zelaya in Honduras fails to Cuba on the embargo and returns to repeat it. Here's a policy with no capacity for reflection, unable to rectify, without possibility of starting a new stage and that is both psychological and political pathology pathology.
Chury: Well Petras, we are in the final and I wanted to say in a very brief analysis is reduced to a sentence of 50 years in journalism I came to learn that here in Uruguay, the major leftist leaders were nothing more than people who wanted to be a day to enjoy the privileges that were members of traditional parties that had ruled before. That would be the synthesis that could make my country right now and I say this: I want to thank you one year more, but this year because today we're ending but with the promise of meeting again in 2010, will surely be very lavish in your own comments, analysis, in all that we can release to a greater understanding of people. It remains for me to send a big greeting, a big hug on behalf of the audience and that the year 2010 the best year for you and your people.
Petras: Same to you, including housewives, taxi drivers, caddies and others who are the listeners. A big hug.
0 comments:
Post a Comment