Skrivet av August TW 2009-11-22 21:04

hmm

Hej igen Magnus. Det blir många frågor nu och jag fattar såklart om du inte har tid att svara på allt (och tackar dig återigen för alla svar som du redan givit). Men det är nämligen så att Chomsky(!) i vår mailkorrespondens (indirekt) efterfrågar engelskspråkiga (eller spanskspråkiga?) artiklar etc. där problemet att människor som arbetar i Chavez sociala projekt inte vågar uttrycka sina åsikter belyses etc. Han erkände att han inte studerat Venezuela i detalj. Har du några tips?

Publicerar konversationen sen, kan kanske vara av intresse.

Skrivet av atw 2009-11-22 21:10

sdsd

ps. det där var en mkt förenklad version av vad han faktiskt skrev såklart. men men.. tips? ds.

Skrivet av magnus 2009-11-22 22:58

xx

hej atw. på engelska vet jag inte men det lär väl finnas många om man letar eftersom det finns flera t o m på svenska, typ det jag skrivit o lotten collins rep i radion etc. tror t o m det problemet är speglat i gregory wilperts "changing venezuela by taking power" o nikolas kozloffs "revolution - south america and the rise of the new left", både i grunden väldigt postiva till chávez men inte såna idioter som blundar för allt som är dåligt bara för att de gillar chávez. kolla marc cooper, en vänsterjournalist jag tror chomsky gillar, som helt har tappat hoppet om chávez. vet dock ej om han besökt några sociala projekt, men det tror jag.

Skrivet av atw 2009-11-25 09:18

djkdjk

Tack!

Här lite smått och gott från korrespondensen med chomsky (kan tänka mig att vissa delar kan intressera).

Jag: I remember that you, in some speech about Gaza, said something about the fact that Israel has been regarded as part of the defence of the ruling clerics against their own populations in the undemocratic Arab countries. What did you mean by that?

Noam: I've written a lot about it. In brief, the US-Israel relation was established in its present form after Israel's destruction of Nasser and secular Arab nationalism, the great enemy of the US and UK, which were strongly supporting radical Islamic fundamentalist Saudi Arabia. After that Israel was assigned the role of one of the "cops on the beat" (in Nixon administration terminology) protecting the leadership of the Islamic dictators of the oil states, against independent forces, including their own populations. The other "cops" were Iran (under the Shah, Turkey, and Pakistan, all non-Arab. The system developed since under basically the same assumptions, with changes as circumstances changed. Israel too supported radical Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against the secular PLO.



Jag: You have said, correct me if I'm wrong, that the most important enemies of governments (states?) are their own populations (and other states/governments?). But at the same time you seem to be in favor of social democratic reforms like those we have had in sweden (which increases the power/influence of the government), and you say that the people can influence the government in at least some way. How do you combine these ways of thinking, and do you make a distinction between the public sector and the government/state (because you seem to want to expand the public sector but at the same time reduce the power of the government)?

Noam: In existing societies, there are several (linked) centers of powers, primarily the corporate sector and the government. The corporate sector is internally totalitarian, virtually unaccountable to the public, and dedicated to increasing profit and market share (by law). The government is partially accountable to the public, and provides the only means, at present, to defend the public from the predatory corporate sector and the ravages of the market. Therefore, in existing societies, anyone who cares about people and their fate will support social democratic reforms. In a more free and just society these centers of power would wither, and in my view at least, should disappear into a libertarian socialist system.



Jag: You said that the private corporate sector is ''virtually unaccountable to the public''. How much do you think that protest (for example againts sweatshops) can modify the way a private corporation acts? Of course they want to maintain some kind of moral image so that they don't loose consumers, but how far do you think that popular protest can modify how they act?

Noam: That's not a matter of accountability. Even totalitarian dictators respond to popular pressures. That's why, for example, Nazi Germany had to fight a "guns and butter" war, which set them back badly according to Speer. There's no general answer to when it works. Depends on the circumstances, and how the protests are carried out. Sure it can modify how they act. There are plenty of examples.



Jag: I have to ask which popular movement/government/country that you have visited/studied during your life that you think has been closests to create a sustainable and fair society when it comes to social and economical structures? Maybe a stupid or impossible question to answer, but I'll ask it anyway.

Noam: At the moment, the Nordic societies are as close as any in most respects, but not in all. Thus the US is well in the lead in protecting such fundamental rights as freedom of speech (since the 1960s). Bolivia and Brazil are in the lead in having significant popular mass movements. And there are other dimensions.



Jag: You talk a lot about Obama campaign funding and that the financial institutions contributed with the bulk of his funding in the presidential election. People often say that small donations from ordinary people constituted the majority of his funding. Is that not true?

Noam: People also say that the stock market is democratic because so many people have a few dollars in pension funds, etc., even though ownership is very highly concentrated, and it is the concentration that determines corporate behavior. Same with Obama. It's hard to get exact numbers, because there are all sorts of ways for corporations to "bundle" individual contributions. But the investigations that have been carried out show that his funding was concentrated in financial institutions. It also seems pretty clear that that high concentration of funding was responsible for shifting the swing states to him at the end of the campaign.



Jag: Am I allowed to ask you how many mails you read per day? Actually I also have one other very, very short question about Iraq: According to people like Jeremy Scahill, who talked on swedish radio a month ago, it seems like Obama wants to ''replace'' the US soldiers in Iraq with private contractors. Do you think they could actually ''replace'' a great part (all?) of the US soldiers in this way and make the statistics over US soldiers there look better?

Noam: Mail usually takes 6-7 hours a day, usually a night. Scahill is very accurate on these matters. It's quite natural. Imperial powers generally use mercenaries, not their own troops: the French Foreign Legion, the Gurkhas, etc. The "contractors" are in fact mercenaries, and are often referred to by that term. You can learn more from Scahill's book about Blackwater.



Annat smått och gott från korrespondensen:

Om Venezuelas president Hugo Chavez ‘’nedstängning’’ av oppositionens tv-kanal RCTV (hans uteblivna förnyande av kanalens licens), fem år efter att kanalen aktivt deltagit i en kortlivad militärkupp mot Chavez demokratiskt valda regering: ‘’On RCTV, how many letters have you written to people who condemned the failure to renew their license (as I did) but failed to mention that if it had happened in the US, they (RCTV) would have been lined up before firing squads?’’



Chomsky om Venezuela under Chavez: ’’Without deep investigation, my impression is roughly like those of Wilpert, Hahnel, and others who have investigated carefully: there are promising initiatives, uncontroversial success in reducing poverty and other achievements, uncontroversial very high popular support up to at least a year ago, a serious threat of caudillism, and a fundamental flaw in that changes are coming from above rather than from below, as in Bolivia, which is why I write about Bolivia, not Venezuela.’’



Chomsky om att använda argumentet att Israel är den enda demokratin i regionen som ett försvar för dess brott: ‘’It would be completely irrelevant if true. The US was far more democratic than Vietnam. Can anyone but a lunatic offer that as a justification for the US attack and its consequences? Hitler came to power democratically, and was probably the most popular leader in German history, and would have easily won an election, until the war began to go sour. Does that justify the Holocaust? That aside, the claim is dubious. Palestine had a free and fair election, carefully monitored, in January 2006, to which the US-Israel responded instantly by punishing the population severely for voting "the wrong way," with the EU toddling along politely behind, as usual.’’



Om baskiska Mondragon: ‘’I'm familiar with Mondragon, and think it is important. But it is a very restricted alternative to capitalism. It is worker owned (like United Airlines), but not worker-managed. The traditional libertarian left (Council Communists, anarchosyndicalists, Institute for Workers Control, etc.) were committed to worker self-management, and rightly I think. Worker self-management is very different from electing managers and then following their decisions. There's a substantial literature on this, including what I referred to. ’’



Chomsky om att han inte fick några frågor av svenska journalister om det egna landets brott när han var i på besök i Sverige (något han däremot fick av kubanska journalister när han besökte Kuba och talade i diktaturens statligt kontrollerade medier): ''Similarly, if I'd been asked in Sweden what I thought about Sweden's criminal record in East Timor, I would have answered. I did have a press conference in Sweden, and then a separate interview with DN (because they were too high and mighty, they explained, to attend a joint press conference). Nothing about Sweden came up, as far as I know, I suppose because unlike Cuba, they don't want their crimes discussed -- or worse, maybe don't even know about them. I might add that I was rather surprised by the quality and subordination to power of these interviews, but I've never written about it.''

Skrivet av August TW 2009-11-25 09:23

sd

ehmmm oooppsss.. sorry, råkade kopiera in allt som jag hade lagt in på word... var menat att det bara skulle bli delarna om sydamerika!! sorry för det magnus!

Skrivet av magnus 2009-11-25 15:21

xx

no probs. intresserar säkert många.

Skrivet av Lasse Bildt 2009-11-26 05:28

helt rätt - allt helt fel

Jag tror du har helt rätt i att USA försuttit en fantastisk chans att omformulera sitt förhållande till Latinamerika. Man kan fråga sig varför, för om det är som jag tror att Obama mest av allt vill ha lugn, så har han nu bäddat för bråk inom ett flertal stater i regionen. Att bibehålla status quo kräver stundom radikala åtgärder!

Det USA (och några markanta högerstater i Latinamerika) nu säger innebär också att man desavouerar OAS, FN och diverse andra regionala församlingar som gått på den korrekta linjen att inte acceptera en statskupp. När USA går emot internationella konsensus och utomlands bejakar något man aldrig skulle acceptera domestic, innebär att man ansluter sig till den sämsta ådran i sin egen utrikespolitik.

Jag gissar att detta är det första tecknet på att vi inte kommer att få någon (ny) Latinamerika-politik från USA, annat än lite medhårsstrykande av lokala eliter och annat som inte är kontroversiellt på Capitol Hill och inom starka lobbygrupper i Washington. Jag trodde att Obama kanske skulle köra en "Carter" och betona MR-frågor, good governance, etc. Men antagligen väljer han sina fajter och har helt enkelt valt bort Latinamerika.

I det läget framstår det ju extra tydligt att Europa (EU) INTE HELLER har någon Latinamerika-politik. Sverige har det inte och saknar antagligen rätt kompetens för att skaffa en dylik och i resten av EU är det likartat. Utom Spanien, som ju - som det heter - har historiska och kulturella band som gör att de alltid har sin egen politik.

Vad ligger då i pipen? Skärpta motsättningar mellan traditionella (dum-höger) eliter och populist-auktoritära (dum-vänster) rörelser. Ett scenario där vi varje dag kommer att behöva fråga oss själva det är bäst att skratta eller att gråta.... En politisk uppgörelse väntar som bara har förlorare.

Skrivet av magnus 2009-11-26 05:33

xx

ja det ser mörkt ut. o dom här jävla militärbaserna colombia accepterat gör ju att det blir krig snart. kanske. tragiskt.

Skrivet av atw 2009-11-26 16:40

dsd

Fattar inte på vilket sätt Obama skulle ha ''valt bort'' Latinamerika? Han forsätter väl snarare i stort sett Bush linje (eller den linje Bush skulle varit tvungen att följa ifall han varit president idag, vilket han ju gör även i Irak, där han ersätter amerikanska soldater med privat inhyrda legosoldater, och Afghanistan etc.). Stöd för ''valet'' i Honduras, fortsatt knarkkrig och straffande av Bolivia och Venezuela etc. för att de inte lyder (under förevändning att de inte gör något i kampen mot narkotikan), militärbaser i Colombia etc. Vad är egentligen nytt, förutom lite ny abortpolitik osv?

Har jag fel (för mkt Chomsky), eller är tycks det inte bara som att de är mer av det gamla?

Skrivet av magnus 2009-11-26 18:41

xx

jag tycker det blr lite skruvat att säga att obama är exakt samma sak som bush för latinamerika. på vissa sätt kan han säkert vara värre, men det finns en del grejer där han på sikt kommer spela en positiv roll tror jag. en översyn av drogkriget pågår tex. får se vad det slutar i. att guantanamo inte är stängt än är ju en grov pinsamhet för honom, men tanken är väl fortfarande att det ska stängas. etc. visst är det marginellt och de mesta en besvikels hittills. men bush var ett makalöst freak han knappast är i närheten av.

Skrivet av atw 2009-11-27 03:50

xxxx

nej, det är väl ingen som säger att han är ''exakt samma''. men snarare att om bush skulel suttit kvar några år till skulle han vara tvungen att göra typ samma saker som obama nu gör. med tanke på att bush andra mandatperiod var mer moderat än hans första.

på vilka sätt kan obama bli värre menar du?

vet att man också ska läsa annat än chomsky, men tycker faktiskt det känns som han har rätt vad gäller obama (hittills, vi får se vad som händer i framtiden):

''Bush's second term was more moderate. Some of the most extreme figures were expelled: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and others. Vice President Richard Cheney could not be removed because he WAS the administration. Policy began to return toward the norm.

As Barack Obama came into office, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice predicted he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style that seems to have charmed much of the world. ''

Skrivet av atw 2009-11-27 06:00

dd

ps. och apropå chomsky, kolla in detta:

http://www.citylights.com/book/?GCOI=87286100162960

hmm???

ds.

Skrivet av magnus 2009-11-28 02:17

xx

oj, ser ju ut som en bok man måste läsa. tack för tips.

Skrivet av atw 2009-11-28 11:06

xx

hehe, ironi? :P

hur menade du att obama kanske kan bli värre för latinamerika på vissa sätt?

Skrivet av atw 2009-11-29 10:32

lite mer obama och chomsky

August: You have said (at least that was my interpretation) that Obama does more or less the same thing as would Bush have done if he would be sitting for a third term (his second term you call more moderate than his first). I know that Obama don't do much different yet and that for example his Latin American policies are not very different from Bushs so far. But do you think that Bush also would have done the things that Obama want to do, like with healthcare and Guantanamo etc?



Noam: On Gitmo, Bush would probably have done the same thing. It was an embarrassment, and useless. However, it's worth noting that Obama is going even beyond Bush in trying to implement Gitmo procedures. Thus, the Supreme Court determined that the Gitmo prisoners had habeas corpus rights. Obama is now trying to overturn a judgment by a hard-line Bush appointee that the ruling applies to other US secret prisons, Bagram in particular.

On health care, there is a really serious problem, recognized by the business world. They all realize that the hopelessly inefficient US privatized system is going to tank the economy. The issue they face is how to patch it together without cutting out or severely regulating the private insurance companies. It's likely that Bush and Obama would have taken slightly different approaches to this. It's worth noting that back in August, Business Week had a front-cover story on how the insurance companies were exulting that already won -- though, of course, no victory is ever enough.