Lea aqui: Resumen Latinoamericano
Andre Vitchek (A geopolitical analyst, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist) |
Click here to view a
|
READ MORE ABOUT EACH INVASION HERE:
US Invasions in Latin America and the Caribbean
*-*-*-*
The ALBA countries outperformed the wealthiest countries in the region during the world’s most serious economic crisis in nearly a century
Tortilla con Sal - TeleSUR, oct. 17, 2016
Continuing their ancient war on the world’s impoverished majority, Western elites, having bled dry their own countries’ economies, are now fighting once more to entrench their local allies in power across Latin America and the Caribbean.
In under a year, Argentina under its right-wing regime has lost over 130,000 jobs and inflation-adjusted wages have dropped by 10 percent. Very soon Brazil will certainly be reporting even worse relative numbers. The same criminal Brazilian elite that overthrew President Dilma Rousseff have now got their corrupt proxies in the country’s legislature to make any increase in social spending, health or education impossible for 20 years.This is a sentence of hardship and death for millions of impoverished people in Brazil. In both Brazil and Argentina, illegitimate neoliberal regimes have decided to follow the example of the U.S. and the European Union, rendering their countries' economies easier prey for global vampire elites.
But across Latin America and the Caribbean, people are fighting to stop foreign elites and their local clients from reinstating and deepening neocolonialism to compensate for falling profits in the West. The latest wave of conquistadors fly in business class, wear debonair suits and blather finance-speak while wielding smart phones and devices instead of swords and pistols.
But the nitty gritty of conquest remains the same—extortion from the nation-victims; a small cut for the local oligarchy; and repression for the impoverished majority. That is why Western politicians and media outlets support right-wing regimes in the region while attacking the governments of the main ALBA countries—Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela.
Those countries' governments have reduced poverty and inequality massively, putting to shame much wealthier countries under neoliberal regimes. The ALBA countries have demonstrated the superiority and resilience of their socialist-inspired social and economic models, despite every assault from the West and its corrupt local proxies.
To illustrate the performance of the ALBA countries relative to other countries in the region, the following table highlights the countries that increased their per capita Gross Domestic Product by 75 percent or more between 2006 and 2014.
Special circumstances may or may not apply to Guyana, Peru, Panama and Suriname, but the underperformance of the wealthiest countries in the region is clear. The ALBA countries outperformed them during the world’s most serious economic crisis in nearly a century.
One completely damning statistic is that in the Human Development Index, Cuba ranks above Colombia, Mexico and Peru, level with Brazil and Costa Rica. Another striking feature of the statistics for the ALBA countries is the clear trend towards greater equality, with Cuba again leading the way.
All these numbers are worth noting at a time when ALBA members Ecuador and Bolivia are recovering from the negative effects of volatile global prices for their oil and gas. Ecuador’s case is compounded by the dollarization of the economy inherited from earlier right-wing governments.
But despite those difficulties and this year’s devastating earthquake, Ecuador’s smart policies of economic resistance will enable the government to defeat future political challenges from the country’s right wing. In Venezuela, the government has just presented a budget for 2017 far less dependent on oil revenues. This means the right wing’s economic sabotage, supported by the United States, has failed to destroy President Nicolas Maduro’s social spending and investment plans.
The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean predicts higher growth for Bolivia relative to the rest of the region and also Nicaragua, as well as the Dominican Republic and Panama. The Dominican Republic has reduced poverty with socially inclusive policies and help from Venezuela’s Petrocaribe program.
Panama, a notorious tax haven and financial enclave, is enjoying the benefits of the recent enlargement of its canal, but the socially constructive benefits of that are far from clear. In Bolivia’s case, a big problem is that it may lose as much as US$2 billion from a probable drop in exports to Argentina and Brazil. Even so, Bolivia’s model of community-based social and economic production is much better able to defend the country from potential shocks than the right-wing zombie policies applied in Argentina and Brazil.
Like Bolivia, Nicaragua’s economy has grown at about 4.5 percent a year since 2010, markedly and consistently more than its neighbors. Its economic model stresses economic democratization across all sectors the of country’s economy, again like Bolivia, including the so-called informal sector.
Seventy percent of Nicaragua’s labor force either work independently, in small businesses or on small farms. The country is virtually self-sufficient in food production. At the same time, President Daniel Ortega, a leader of the Sandinistas, has greatly diversified the country’s trade and investment partners cutting across ideological differences in a way similar to the win-win style promoted by China.
Reflecting on all of this information makes it clear that under current conditions governments have little choice but to respect macroeconomic equilibrium. Bolivia and Nicaragua have reactivated their domestic markets by deliberately increasing consumption by the impoverished majority, promoting social stability which in turn has encouraged investment.
All the ALBA countries prioritize economic democratization as decisively important, through measures like nationalizing natural resources and land; programs of preferential credit, especially for low-income women; defense of food sovereignty; and recognition of the informal economy.
Obviously, progressive political forces have to promote a socially constructive society for the majority, abandoning economic structures and practices designed and managed to enrich brutally ruthless elites.
A focus on economic growth is practically meaningless without redistributive policies to reduce inequality. It can hide an appropriate perception of specific national needs and opportunities; the correct appraisal of timing; and also the likely local risks in social and environmental contexts. The ALBA countries have demonstrated convincingly that equitable, rational development of productive forces is both a precondition and a result in the process of a social and economic order capable of superseding capitalism.
In under a year, Argentina under its right-wing regime has lost over 130,000 jobs and inflation-adjusted wages have dropped by 10 percent. Very soon Brazil will certainly be reporting even worse relative numbers. The same criminal Brazilian elite that overthrew President Dilma Rousseff have now got their corrupt proxies in the country’s legislature to make any increase in social spending, health or education impossible for 20 years.This is a sentence of hardship and death for millions of impoverished people in Brazil. In both Brazil and Argentina, illegitimate neoliberal regimes have decided to follow the example of the U.S. and the European Union, rendering their countries' economies easier prey for global vampire elites.
But across Latin America and the Caribbean, people are fighting to stop foreign elites and their local clients from reinstating and deepening neocolonialism to compensate for falling profits in the West. The latest wave of conquistadors fly in business class, wear debonair suits and blather finance-speak while wielding smart phones and devices instead of swords and pistols.
But the nitty gritty of conquest remains the same—extortion from the nation-victims; a small cut for the local oligarchy; and repression for the impoverished majority. That is why Western politicians and media outlets support right-wing regimes in the region while attacking the governments of the main ALBA countries—Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela.
Those countries' governments have reduced poverty and inequality massively, putting to shame much wealthier countries under neoliberal regimes. The ALBA countries have demonstrated the superiority and resilience of their socialist-inspired social and economic models, despite every assault from the West and its corrupt local proxies.
To illustrate the performance of the ALBA countries relative to other countries in the region, the following table highlights the countries that increased their per capita Gross Domestic Product by 75 percent or more between 2006 and 2014.
Special circumstances may or may not apply to Guyana, Peru, Panama and Suriname, but the underperformance of the wealthiest countries in the region is clear. The ALBA countries outperformed them during the world’s most serious economic crisis in nearly a century.
One completely damning statistic is that in the Human Development Index, Cuba ranks above Colombia, Mexico and Peru, level with Brazil and Costa Rica. Another striking feature of the statistics for the ALBA countries is the clear trend towards greater equality, with Cuba again leading the way.
All these numbers are worth noting at a time when ALBA members Ecuador and Bolivia are recovering from the negative effects of volatile global prices for their oil and gas. Ecuador’s case is compounded by the dollarization of the economy inherited from earlier right-wing governments.
But despite those difficulties and this year’s devastating earthquake, Ecuador’s smart policies of economic resistance will enable the government to defeat future political challenges from the country’s right wing. In Venezuela, the government has just presented a budget for 2017 far less dependent on oil revenues. This means the right wing’s economic sabotage, supported by the United States, has failed to destroy President Nicolas Maduro’s social spending and investment plans.
The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean predicts higher growth for Bolivia relative to the rest of the region and also Nicaragua, as well as the Dominican Republic and Panama. The Dominican Republic has reduced poverty with socially inclusive policies and help from Venezuela’s Petrocaribe program.
Panama, a notorious tax haven and financial enclave, is enjoying the benefits of the recent enlargement of its canal, but the socially constructive benefits of that are far from clear. In Bolivia’s case, a big problem is that it may lose as much as US$2 billion from a probable drop in exports to Argentina and Brazil. Even so, Bolivia’s model of community-based social and economic production is much better able to defend the country from potential shocks than the right-wing zombie policies applied in Argentina and Brazil.
Like Bolivia, Nicaragua’s economy has grown at about 4.5 percent a year since 2010, markedly and consistently more than its neighbors. Its economic model stresses economic democratization across all sectors the of country’s economy, again like Bolivia, including the so-called informal sector.
Seventy percent of Nicaragua’s labor force either work independently, in small businesses or on small farms. The country is virtually self-sufficient in food production. At the same time, President Daniel Ortega, a leader of the Sandinistas, has greatly diversified the country’s trade and investment partners cutting across ideological differences in a way similar to the win-win style promoted by China.
Reflecting on all of this information makes it clear that under current conditions governments have little choice but to respect macroeconomic equilibrium. Bolivia and Nicaragua have reactivated their domestic markets by deliberately increasing consumption by the impoverished majority, promoting social stability which in turn has encouraged investment.
All the ALBA countries prioritize economic democratization as decisively important, through measures like nationalizing natural resources and land; programs of preferential credit, especially for low-income women; defense of food sovereignty; and recognition of the informal economy.
Obviously, progressive political forces have to promote a socially constructive society for the majority, abandoning economic structures and practices designed and managed to enrich brutally ruthless elites.
A focus on economic growth is practically meaningless without redistributive policies to reduce inequality. It can hide an appropriate perception of specific national needs and opportunities; the correct appraisal of timing; and also the likely local risks in social and environmental contexts. The ALBA countries have demonstrated convincingly that equitable, rational development of productive forces is both a precondition and a result in the process of a social and economic order capable of superseding capitalism.
Cartografía de la lucha de clases en América Latina y el Caribe: Posneoliberalismo vs. Capitalismo offshore
POR KATU ARKONADA - Resumen Latinoamericano
14 de septiembre 2016
Desde noviembre de 2015 han ocurrido sucesos excepcionales que cambian el panorama geopolítico y la cartografía de la lucha de clases en nuestra América. Con este trabajo pretendemos abordarlos, haciendo previamente un repaso de las etapas del ciclo posneoliberal que abrió una nueva etapa en nuestra región, al tiempo que intentamos un análisis sobre los acontecimientos de los últimos meses, que nos sitúan en un punto de inflexión y marcan enormes desafíos para los pueblos. Nos referimos centralmente al avance político de las fuerzas de derecha, avances expresados en el plano electoral y judicial que han logrado desalojar a dos gobiernos progresistas y estratégicos dado su peso político y económico como Argentina y Brasil, y que han ganado elecciones en Bolivia y Venezuela, modificando la correlación de fuerzas subjetivas y objetivas en la región.
Nuestra América se encuentra entonces en un punto de bifurcación, una guerra de posiciones entre las fuerzas sociales y políticas que protagonizan y conducen (o condujeron) el ciclo progresista posneoliberal, y aquellas que apuestan desesperadamente por la restauración neoliberal en forma de capitalismo offshore, un capitalismo que muestra la agudización de algunas tendencias que podrían indicar una modificación del ciclo capitalista dentro de su fase ya iniciada de descomposición[1].
El momento político nos deja una derecha que ha acumulado fuerza en el plano electoral y solo necesita ganar las elecciones (y a veces como en Brasil, ni siquiera eso), mientras que la izquierda necesita ganar, pero sobre todo estar en la calle y reactualizar el proyecto político anti-neoliberal.
No es momento de lamentar los reveses políticos sufridos por la izquierda, sino de reflexionar sobre las nuevas formas de contrarrestar la ofensiva del capitalismo offshore contra los pueblos de América Latina y el Caribe, de retomar la ofensiva que nos lleve a otro momento de acumulación política y social, que abra otra etapa del ciclo progresista. Pero también es necesario ejercer la crítica y a la autocrítica para rectificar a tiempo en el caso del núcleo duro del cambio de época progresista (Venezuela, Bolivia y Ecuador) y para construir algo diferente en aquellos países en los que los pueblos hemos pasado a la oposición y resistencia.
Para pensar el momento actual es necesario comprender las diversas etapas que ha mostrado el ciclo progresista que convirtió a América Latina y el Caribe en la única región del mundo donde se comenzó a construir una alternativa al sistema capitalista o al menos a sus patrones de acumulación más agresivos desarrollados por medio de las políticas neoliberales.
Fase previa, o acumulación originaria del ciclo progresista (1989-1998): Las resistencias al neoliberalismo.
Caía el muro de Berlín, se desintegraba el proyecto histórico de la izquierda comunista mientras las fracciones más concentradas del capital arrasaban con las conquistas históricas de las y los trabajadores y los pueblos. Sin embargo, al tiempo que nos decían que había llegado el fin de la historia y de la lucha de clases, en el Sur del mundo comenzaba a germinar una resistencia al neoliberalismo todavía embrionaria durante el Caracazo (1989) y ya más organizada en el levantamiento zapatista (1994), así como otros procesos de resistencia contras las consecuencias de las políticas neoliberales primero y de lucha contra esas mismas políticas después.
LEA ARTICULO COMPLETO AQUI ...
Nuestra América se encuentra entonces en un punto de bifurcación, una guerra de posiciones entre las fuerzas sociales y políticas que protagonizan y conducen (o condujeron) el ciclo progresista posneoliberal, y aquellas que apuestan desesperadamente por la restauración neoliberal en forma de capitalismo offshore, un capitalismo que muestra la agudización de algunas tendencias que podrían indicar una modificación del ciclo capitalista dentro de su fase ya iniciada de descomposición[1].
El momento político nos deja una derecha que ha acumulado fuerza en el plano electoral y solo necesita ganar las elecciones (y a veces como en Brasil, ni siquiera eso), mientras que la izquierda necesita ganar, pero sobre todo estar en la calle y reactualizar el proyecto político anti-neoliberal.
No es momento de lamentar los reveses políticos sufridos por la izquierda, sino de reflexionar sobre las nuevas formas de contrarrestar la ofensiva del capitalismo offshore contra los pueblos de América Latina y el Caribe, de retomar la ofensiva que nos lleve a otro momento de acumulación política y social, que abra otra etapa del ciclo progresista. Pero también es necesario ejercer la crítica y a la autocrítica para rectificar a tiempo en el caso del núcleo duro del cambio de época progresista (Venezuela, Bolivia y Ecuador) y para construir algo diferente en aquellos países en los que los pueblos hemos pasado a la oposición y resistencia.
Para pensar el momento actual es necesario comprender las diversas etapas que ha mostrado el ciclo progresista que convirtió a América Latina y el Caribe en la única región del mundo donde se comenzó a construir una alternativa al sistema capitalista o al menos a sus patrones de acumulación más agresivos desarrollados por medio de las políticas neoliberales.
Fase previa, o acumulación originaria del ciclo progresista (1989-1998): Las resistencias al neoliberalismo.
Caía el muro de Berlín, se desintegraba el proyecto histórico de la izquierda comunista mientras las fracciones más concentradas del capital arrasaban con las conquistas históricas de las y los trabajadores y los pueblos. Sin embargo, al tiempo que nos decían que había llegado el fin de la historia y de la lucha de clases, en el Sur del mundo comenzaba a germinar una resistencia al neoliberalismo todavía embrionaria durante el Caracazo (1989) y ya más organizada en el levantamiento zapatista (1994), así como otros procesos de resistencia contras las consecuencias de las políticas neoliberales primero y de lucha contra esas mismas políticas después.
LEA ARTICULO COMPLETO AQUI ...
“The Fact That we Have Submissive Governments in the Region is Shameful”, Says Bolivian Vice President
Héctor Bernardo / Source: Diario Contexto / The Dawn News
August 27, 2016
The Vice President of Bolivia analyzed the regional context and affirmed that, if peoples and governments don’t react, “the US will infiltrate every possible area”.
In his visit to Argentina, Álvaro García Linera was honored with the Rodolfo Walsh Award by the Faculty of Journalism and Social Communication of La Plata University. Afterwards, he held a press conference at the University in which he analyzed several current topics.
In that context, the Bolivian Vice President rhetorically asked “What sort of enemy is there in the Atacama desert for US troops to have to come with their equipment and their radars? What terrorist group, what ISIS cell is hiding in Atacama? There are none. Unless they think the enemy is the people. The people of Chile or the neighboring countries”.
“This is suspicious, and we have publicly protested. But the important thing is that Governments and peoples have to react. If we’re submissive, those who are in power are going to take advantage of that. The fact that we have submissive governments in the region that allow for this kind of intervention is shameful. We may protest, but as long as the people of Chile doesn’t mobilize or the authorities don’t act according to their responsibility with the continent, North Americans are going to intervene everywhere. But that strongly depends on us”, he assured.
“Does a glass break because a rock hit it? Or does it break because it was breakable? Rocks are always going to hit, there’s always going to be aggression —that is a universal constant, in the mathematical sense of the term. Therefore, considering that aggression is a constant, we as peoples of this region must be conscious about what steps we take and know that it will determine whether that aggression breaks us or not”.
“The empire, the evil ones, are always going to come for us. So what do we do in order to protect ourselves against it? Because, where there are no conditions for viability, the intervention will not prosper. Our responsibility is to build a glass that is resistant to the rocks”.
“It’s the same with military bases. The peoples of the continent have to react, particularly the people of Chile and Colombia, where US military bases are located, but they’ll have to go sooner or later. This is not the XIX century, with invasions, military bases, and where our countries were considered slave countries”.
It was a century in which we could be invaded and our governments changed at will, as if this was their back yard. Now we’ve built sovereignty, we’ve moved on with the economy, where are other international rules and another global context. But some countries are still stuck in the XIX century, that’s why the US military is still pressing on”, he said.
Lastly, García Linera affirmed: “Military bases are a risk for the continent. The continent is not going to progress with military bases, it’s going to progress with technology and with integration. For whom are these military bases? Against whom? We’re one of the most peaceful continents in the world. Then, what are these foreign troops here for, if it’s not to impose themselves over other countries? That, without a doubt, creates a contradiction with our goals of integration and continental sovereignty”.
In his visit to Argentina, Álvaro García Linera was honored with the Rodolfo Walsh Award by the Faculty of Journalism and Social Communication of La Plata University. Afterwards, he held a press conference at the University in which he analyzed several current topics.
In that context, the Bolivian Vice President rhetorically asked “What sort of enemy is there in the Atacama desert for US troops to have to come with their equipment and their radars? What terrorist group, what ISIS cell is hiding in Atacama? There are none. Unless they think the enemy is the people. The people of Chile or the neighboring countries”.
“This is suspicious, and we have publicly protested. But the important thing is that Governments and peoples have to react. If we’re submissive, those who are in power are going to take advantage of that. The fact that we have submissive governments in the region that allow for this kind of intervention is shameful. We may protest, but as long as the people of Chile doesn’t mobilize or the authorities don’t act according to their responsibility with the continent, North Americans are going to intervene everywhere. But that strongly depends on us”, he assured.
“Does a glass break because a rock hit it? Or does it break because it was breakable? Rocks are always going to hit, there’s always going to be aggression —that is a universal constant, in the mathematical sense of the term. Therefore, considering that aggression is a constant, we as peoples of this region must be conscious about what steps we take and know that it will determine whether that aggression breaks us or not”.
“The empire, the evil ones, are always going to come for us. So what do we do in order to protect ourselves against it? Because, where there are no conditions for viability, the intervention will not prosper. Our responsibility is to build a glass that is resistant to the rocks”.
“It’s the same with military bases. The peoples of the continent have to react, particularly the people of Chile and Colombia, where US military bases are located, but they’ll have to go sooner or later. This is not the XIX century, with invasions, military bases, and where our countries were considered slave countries”.
It was a century in which we could be invaded and our governments changed at will, as if this was their back yard. Now we’ve built sovereignty, we’ve moved on with the economy, where are other international rules and another global context. But some countries are still stuck in the XIX century, that’s why the US military is still pressing on”, he said.
Lastly, García Linera affirmed: “Military bases are a risk for the continent. The continent is not going to progress with military bases, it’s going to progress with technology and with integration. For whom are these military bases? Against whom? We’re one of the most peaceful continents in the world. Then, what are these foreign troops here for, if it’s not to impose themselves over other countries? That, without a doubt, creates a contradiction with our goals of integration and continental sovereignty”.
The end of post-neoliberalism
www.opendemocracy.net / By FRANÇOIS HOUTART / The Dawn News
July, 7, 2016
>>Read More: Interview With François Houtart: ‘Post-neoliberal’ or ‘Progressive’? Governments and social movements facing the crisis. Part I and Part II <<
In response to the crisis, “progressive” governments adopted increasingly market-friendly measures. The “conservative restoration” that they regularly denounce was in fact surreptitiously introduced from within.
The time when dictatorships and neoliberal governments in Latin America were replaced by several progressive governments which benefited the poor without seriously affecting the income of the rich is coming to an end. Governments are back on the Right track. This signals a new time when unity of the popular sectors is once again the only way forward.
Latin America was the only continent where neoliberal options were adopted in several countries. After a series of US supported military dictatorships carrying the neoliberal project, reactions were swift. They culminated in the rejection, in 2005, of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Canada, which came as a result of a joint effort by social movements, leftist political parties, non-governmental organizations and Christian churches.
The new governments of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay and Bolivia put into effect policies which reestablished the role of the state in redistributing wealth, reorganizing public services, particularly access to healthcare and education and investment in public works. A more suitable share of the revenue from the exploitation of natural resources (oil, gas, minerals, agricultural produce) was negotiated between multinational corporations and the state, and the decade-long favourable international market situation allowed a significant increase in national income for these countries.
To talk about the end of a cycle conveys the idea of some sort of historical determinism that suggests the inevitability of the alternation of power between the Left and the Right – an inadequate concept if the goal is to replace an oligarchy’s hegemony by popular democratic regimes. On the assumption that the new governments were post-neoliberal but not post-capitalist, a number of factors allow us to suggest, however, that we are witnessing an exhaustion of the post-neoliberal experiences.
Obviously, it would be delusory to think that “instant” socialism is at all possible in a capitalist world during a systemic and therefore particularly aggressive crisis. The question of a necessary transition arises.
A post-neoliberal project
The project of the Latin American “progressive” governments to rebuild an economic and political system capable of repairing the disastrous social effects of neoliberalism was no easy task. The restoration of the social functions of the state, which has always been controlled by a conservative administration quite unable to be an instrument of change, led to its reorganization. In the case of Venezuela, a parallel state (the so-called missions) was established thanks to the oil revenues. In other cases, new ministries were created and high-ranking civil servants were gradually substituted. The process was guided on the whole by a centralized and hierarchical conception of the state (the importance of a charismatic leader), and showed a tendency to use social movements as instruments, to develop an often paralyzing bureaucracy, and to coexist with corruption (in some cases, large scale).
The political will to leave neoliberalism behind had positive results: an effective fight against poverty for millions of people, better access to healthcare and education, and public investment in infrastructures – in short, a redistribution of at least a part of the domestic product, which had grown considerably as a result of the rise in the world commodity prices.
This benefited the poor without seriously affecting the income of the rich.
To this should be added the important efforts made towards Latin American integration, through the creation or the strengthening of organizations such as Mercosur, which groups ten South American countries; UNASUR, which integrates the continent’s South; CELAC, which does the same for the whole Latin world plus the Caribbean; and finally, ALBA, a Venezuelan initiative involving ten countries, which offers a new perspective in cooperation, based not on competition but on complementarity and solidarity.
But the domestic economies of the “progressive” countries remained, in fact, dominated by private capital, its accumulation logic – particularly in the mining and oil sectors, in finance, telecoms and large-scale trade -, and its disregard for “externalities” – that is, environmental and social damage. This gave rise to escalating reactions from several social movements. The media (press, radio, television) remained largely in the hands of large national and international conglomerates, despite the efforts made to redress a situation of conspicuous communicational imbalance (Telesur and the national communication laws).
What kind of development?
The development model of the “progressive” governments was inspired by the 1960s’ “developmentalism”, when the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) was proposing import substitution through increased domestic production. Its implementation in the 21st century, in a favourable commodity price context, combined with an economic vision focused on increasing production and a conception of redistribution of the national rent without fundamentally altering social structures (no agrarian reform, for example) led to the “re-primarising” of the Latin American economies and an increasing dependence on monopoly capitalism, and thus even to a relative de-industrialization of the continent.
The project gradually morphed into an uncritical modernization of the societies concerned, with some nuances depending on the country – some, like Venezuela, emphasizing community participation. This resulted in an increase in middle-class consumers of goods from abroad. Megaprojects were encouraged and traditional agriculture was left abandoned to its fate to promote export-oriented, ecosystem- and biodiversity-destroying agriculture, to the point of endangering food sovereignty.
True agrarian reforms were nowhere to be seen. And reducing poverty mainly through relief measures (as in neoliberal countries) did little to shorten the social gap, which kept on being the widest in the world.
Could it have been done differently?
One may wonder, of course, if things could have been done differently. A radical revolution would have triggered armed interventions and the US has all the necessary equipment and tools for it.
On the other hand, the strength of monopoly capital is such that the agreements reached in the fields of oil, mining, and agriculture quickly turn into new dependences. To this must be added the difficulty of carrying out autonomous monetary policies, and the pressures from international financial institutions, not to mention capital flight to tax havens, as evidenced by the Panama Papers.
Moreover, the education of the leaders of the “progressive” governments and their advisers was clearly designed for the task of modernizing society, irrespective of other contemporary achievements such as the importance of respecting the environment and ensuring the regeneration of nature, the critique of market-absorbed modernity based on a holistic view of reality, and the importance of the cultural factor. Interestingly, their policies contradicted some pretty innovative constitutional provisions in these areas (the right of nature,buen vivir).
The new contradictions
This explains the rapid evolution of both internal and external contradictions. The most dramatic factor was, obviously, the consequences of the crisis of world capitalism and, particularly, the partly-planned fall in commodity prices, especially oil. Brazil and Argentina were the first countries to suffer its effects, followed swiftly by Venezuela and Ecuador. Bolivia fared better, thanks to its significant foreign exchange reserves. This situation immediately affected employment and the consumption possibilities of the middle class. Dormant conflicts with some social movements and leftist intellectuals came into view. Government failures, which people until then had put up with as the price for change and, especially in some countries, the corruption embedded in their political culture, triggered popular reactions.
Obviously the Right jumped on the opportunity offered by the situation to start a process of recovery of its power and hegemony. Appealing to the democratic values that it never respected before, the Right managed to recover part of the electorate: it took power in Argentina, won Congress in Venezuela, questioned the democratic system in Brazil, and ensured a majority in the main cities of Ecuador and Bolivia. It tried to take advantage of the disappointment of some sectors, particularly the indigenous peoples and the middle classes. And it also tried to overcome its own contradictions, especially between the traditional oligarchies and the modern sectors, with the support of many US agencies and the media it controls.
In response to the crisis, “progressive” governments adopted increasingly market-friendly measures, so that the “conservative restoration” they regularly denounce was in fact surreptitiously introduced from within. The transitions then simply became adaptations of capitalism to the new ecological and social demands (modern capitalism) rather than steps towards a new post-capitalist paradigm.
All this does not mean the end of social struggles, on the contrary.
The solution lies, on the one hand, in the grouping of the forces for change, inside and outside government, to redefine the project and the transition forms and, on the other hand, in the reconstruction of autonomous social movements focused on medium and long term goals.
In response to the crisis, “progressive” governments adopted increasingly market-friendly measures. The “conservative restoration” that they regularly denounce was in fact surreptitiously introduced from within.
The time when dictatorships and neoliberal governments in Latin America were replaced by several progressive governments which benefited the poor without seriously affecting the income of the rich is coming to an end. Governments are back on the Right track. This signals a new time when unity of the popular sectors is once again the only way forward.
Latin America was the only continent where neoliberal options were adopted in several countries. After a series of US supported military dictatorships carrying the neoliberal project, reactions were swift. They culminated in the rejection, in 2005, of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Canada, which came as a result of a joint effort by social movements, leftist political parties, non-governmental organizations and Christian churches.
The new governments of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay and Bolivia put into effect policies which reestablished the role of the state in redistributing wealth, reorganizing public services, particularly access to healthcare and education and investment in public works. A more suitable share of the revenue from the exploitation of natural resources (oil, gas, minerals, agricultural produce) was negotiated between multinational corporations and the state, and the decade-long favourable international market situation allowed a significant increase in national income for these countries.
To talk about the end of a cycle conveys the idea of some sort of historical determinism that suggests the inevitability of the alternation of power between the Left and the Right – an inadequate concept if the goal is to replace an oligarchy’s hegemony by popular democratic regimes. On the assumption that the new governments were post-neoliberal but not post-capitalist, a number of factors allow us to suggest, however, that we are witnessing an exhaustion of the post-neoliberal experiences.
Obviously, it would be delusory to think that “instant” socialism is at all possible in a capitalist world during a systemic and therefore particularly aggressive crisis. The question of a necessary transition arises.
A post-neoliberal project
The project of the Latin American “progressive” governments to rebuild an economic and political system capable of repairing the disastrous social effects of neoliberalism was no easy task. The restoration of the social functions of the state, which has always been controlled by a conservative administration quite unable to be an instrument of change, led to its reorganization. In the case of Venezuela, a parallel state (the so-called missions) was established thanks to the oil revenues. In other cases, new ministries were created and high-ranking civil servants were gradually substituted. The process was guided on the whole by a centralized and hierarchical conception of the state (the importance of a charismatic leader), and showed a tendency to use social movements as instruments, to develop an often paralyzing bureaucracy, and to coexist with corruption (in some cases, large scale).
The political will to leave neoliberalism behind had positive results: an effective fight against poverty for millions of people, better access to healthcare and education, and public investment in infrastructures – in short, a redistribution of at least a part of the domestic product, which had grown considerably as a result of the rise in the world commodity prices.
This benefited the poor without seriously affecting the income of the rich.
To this should be added the important efforts made towards Latin American integration, through the creation or the strengthening of organizations such as Mercosur, which groups ten South American countries; UNASUR, which integrates the continent’s South; CELAC, which does the same for the whole Latin world plus the Caribbean; and finally, ALBA, a Venezuelan initiative involving ten countries, which offers a new perspective in cooperation, based not on competition but on complementarity and solidarity.
But the domestic economies of the “progressive” countries remained, in fact, dominated by private capital, its accumulation logic – particularly in the mining and oil sectors, in finance, telecoms and large-scale trade -, and its disregard for “externalities” – that is, environmental and social damage. This gave rise to escalating reactions from several social movements. The media (press, radio, television) remained largely in the hands of large national and international conglomerates, despite the efforts made to redress a situation of conspicuous communicational imbalance (Telesur and the national communication laws).
What kind of development?
The development model of the “progressive” governments was inspired by the 1960s’ “developmentalism”, when the United Nations’ Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) was proposing import substitution through increased domestic production. Its implementation in the 21st century, in a favourable commodity price context, combined with an economic vision focused on increasing production and a conception of redistribution of the national rent without fundamentally altering social structures (no agrarian reform, for example) led to the “re-primarising” of the Latin American economies and an increasing dependence on monopoly capitalism, and thus even to a relative de-industrialization of the continent.
The project gradually morphed into an uncritical modernization of the societies concerned, with some nuances depending on the country – some, like Venezuela, emphasizing community participation. This resulted in an increase in middle-class consumers of goods from abroad. Megaprojects were encouraged and traditional agriculture was left abandoned to its fate to promote export-oriented, ecosystem- and biodiversity-destroying agriculture, to the point of endangering food sovereignty.
True agrarian reforms were nowhere to be seen. And reducing poverty mainly through relief measures (as in neoliberal countries) did little to shorten the social gap, which kept on being the widest in the world.
Could it have been done differently?
One may wonder, of course, if things could have been done differently. A radical revolution would have triggered armed interventions and the US has all the necessary equipment and tools for it.
On the other hand, the strength of monopoly capital is such that the agreements reached in the fields of oil, mining, and agriculture quickly turn into new dependences. To this must be added the difficulty of carrying out autonomous monetary policies, and the pressures from international financial institutions, not to mention capital flight to tax havens, as evidenced by the Panama Papers.
Moreover, the education of the leaders of the “progressive” governments and their advisers was clearly designed for the task of modernizing society, irrespective of other contemporary achievements such as the importance of respecting the environment and ensuring the regeneration of nature, the critique of market-absorbed modernity based on a holistic view of reality, and the importance of the cultural factor. Interestingly, their policies contradicted some pretty innovative constitutional provisions in these areas (the right of nature,buen vivir).
The new contradictions
This explains the rapid evolution of both internal and external contradictions. The most dramatic factor was, obviously, the consequences of the crisis of world capitalism and, particularly, the partly-planned fall in commodity prices, especially oil. Brazil and Argentina were the first countries to suffer its effects, followed swiftly by Venezuela and Ecuador. Bolivia fared better, thanks to its significant foreign exchange reserves. This situation immediately affected employment and the consumption possibilities of the middle class. Dormant conflicts with some social movements and leftist intellectuals came into view. Government failures, which people until then had put up with as the price for change and, especially in some countries, the corruption embedded in their political culture, triggered popular reactions.
Obviously the Right jumped on the opportunity offered by the situation to start a process of recovery of its power and hegemony. Appealing to the democratic values that it never respected before, the Right managed to recover part of the electorate: it took power in Argentina, won Congress in Venezuela, questioned the democratic system in Brazil, and ensured a majority in the main cities of Ecuador and Bolivia. It tried to take advantage of the disappointment of some sectors, particularly the indigenous peoples and the middle classes. And it also tried to overcome its own contradictions, especially between the traditional oligarchies and the modern sectors, with the support of many US agencies and the media it controls.
In response to the crisis, “progressive” governments adopted increasingly market-friendly measures, so that the “conservative restoration” they regularly denounce was in fact surreptitiously introduced from within. The transitions then simply became adaptations of capitalism to the new ecological and social demands (modern capitalism) rather than steps towards a new post-capitalist paradigm.
All this does not mean the end of social struggles, on the contrary.
The solution lies, on the one hand, in the grouping of the forces for change, inside and outside government, to redefine the project and the transition forms and, on the other hand, in the reconstruction of autonomous social movements focused on medium and long term goals.
The Mercosur, a Symbol of an Era
Gerardo Szalkowicz / Source: Telesur / The Dawn News
August 16, 2016
The Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) has become in the past few weeks the main stage of operations in the dispute in the continent and a reflection of the pronounced reconfiguration of the geopolitical regional scenario.
On the surface of the diplomatic speech and the media average coverage, it appears in the center of the dispute the firm negative of the Governments of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina to recognize the transformation of the Pro Tempore Presidency to Venezuela, as it should had happened naturally if the rules of the block had been respected.
Article 12 of the Treaty of Asunción, 1991, the foundation document of Mercosur, established that “the Presidency of the Council will be executed in rotation by the Member States and in alphabetic order, for a period of 6 months”. The six-monthly transference was being applied religiously in the past 25 years of the organism and, in fact, Venezuela has already exercised it during 2013.
Such shortcircuit derived in an unprecedented paralysis of the Mercosur amidst heavy verbal attacks. The Paraguayan government assured that “they will not accept Venezuela’s self proclamation” and talks about a “de facto presidency”. According to José Serra, Brazilian Chancellor, “the presidency is still in vacancy”. And, after weeks of a public silence, Mauricio Macri made his position public: “I don’t agree with Venezuela taking the Presidency of the Mercosur. They have no right to exercising it”. Only the Uruguayan executive defended —although tepidly— the legal base of the proceeding.
Venezuela’s reaction was resounding. Chancellor Delcy Rodríguez denounced that “Macri “intends the destruction of the Mercosur, following US’s script, which leads him to make historical mistakes”. And an authentic Nicolás Maduro analysed without without subtlety: “Now the Triple Alliance of torturers of South America persecutes us: the Paraguayan corrupt and narco trafficker oligarchy, sickly Macri from Argentina, looser, repudiated by his own people and the dictatorship imposed in Brazil. Triple Alliance, we will fight you and defeat you, Venezuela is to be respected”.
The lack of legality of this Triple Alliance is not paradoxical if we analyse these characters’ history. Eladio Loizaga, Paraguay’s Chancellor and main spokesman of the Anti-Bolivarian onslaught, was an official in Alfredo Stroessner dictatorship in the 70s and active member of the World Anti Communist League, which collaborated with the Condor Plan. What can we say about the spokesmen of the interim Government of Brazil, which took office due to an institutional coup and is related to several corruption denounces. Macri’s complex situation is also known: just in case, his last declarations on the “dirty war” and the figure of disappeared during the dictatorship confirm in which side of history his is standing.
But, which are the objectives behind this conspiracy? On the one hand, the most visible one is to banish Venezuela from the Mercosur, to “get the uncomfortable partner out of the way”, to corner the Bolivarian Revolution as part of a bigger strategy lead from Washington and spread in the mass media. An unstoppable campaign: last Thursday, 13 Latin American governments, along with the US and Canada, launched a press statement to put pressure on the timings of the recall referendum against Maduro.
But the most important thing is to make the Mercosur explode. To paralyse it in order to advance towards flexibilization and to free the way to sign bilateral trade agreements without the need of the consensus of the block. To prepare the field for the announced turn to the Pacific Alliance, the TPP and the restoration of the “free trade” paradigm. To sum up, the awakening the FTAA spirit.
However, self criticism of progressive governments on the steps that they should have taken in the preview stage, mostly on economic articulation, is still pending (what happened with the Bank of the South, signed in 2007, that has never began?). The truth is that in this new times in Latin America the correlation of forces is quite different: the projects that are hegemonic seek to go back on the integration process of the past 15 years and have translated to the regional scenery, the logics and the political conception that countries have been imposing. They are here to reorient the way, because their north is the North.
On the surface of the diplomatic speech and the media average coverage, it appears in the center of the dispute the firm negative of the Governments of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina to recognize the transformation of the Pro Tempore Presidency to Venezuela, as it should had happened naturally if the rules of the block had been respected.
Article 12 of the Treaty of Asunción, 1991, the foundation document of Mercosur, established that “the Presidency of the Council will be executed in rotation by the Member States and in alphabetic order, for a period of 6 months”. The six-monthly transference was being applied religiously in the past 25 years of the organism and, in fact, Venezuela has already exercised it during 2013.
Such shortcircuit derived in an unprecedented paralysis of the Mercosur amidst heavy verbal attacks. The Paraguayan government assured that “they will not accept Venezuela’s self proclamation” and talks about a “de facto presidency”. According to José Serra, Brazilian Chancellor, “the presidency is still in vacancy”. And, after weeks of a public silence, Mauricio Macri made his position public: “I don’t agree with Venezuela taking the Presidency of the Mercosur. They have no right to exercising it”. Only the Uruguayan executive defended —although tepidly— the legal base of the proceeding.
Venezuela’s reaction was resounding. Chancellor Delcy Rodríguez denounced that “Macri “intends the destruction of the Mercosur, following US’s script, which leads him to make historical mistakes”. And an authentic Nicolás Maduro analysed without without subtlety: “Now the Triple Alliance of torturers of South America persecutes us: the Paraguayan corrupt and narco trafficker oligarchy, sickly Macri from Argentina, looser, repudiated by his own people and the dictatorship imposed in Brazil. Triple Alliance, we will fight you and defeat you, Venezuela is to be respected”.
The lack of legality of this Triple Alliance is not paradoxical if we analyse these characters’ history. Eladio Loizaga, Paraguay’s Chancellor and main spokesman of the Anti-Bolivarian onslaught, was an official in Alfredo Stroessner dictatorship in the 70s and active member of the World Anti Communist League, which collaborated with the Condor Plan. What can we say about the spokesmen of the interim Government of Brazil, which took office due to an institutional coup and is related to several corruption denounces. Macri’s complex situation is also known: just in case, his last declarations on the “dirty war” and the figure of disappeared during the dictatorship confirm in which side of history his is standing.
But, which are the objectives behind this conspiracy? On the one hand, the most visible one is to banish Venezuela from the Mercosur, to “get the uncomfortable partner out of the way”, to corner the Bolivarian Revolution as part of a bigger strategy lead from Washington and spread in the mass media. An unstoppable campaign: last Thursday, 13 Latin American governments, along with the US and Canada, launched a press statement to put pressure on the timings of the recall referendum against Maduro.
But the most important thing is to make the Mercosur explode. To paralyse it in order to advance towards flexibilization and to free the way to sign bilateral trade agreements without the need of the consensus of the block. To prepare the field for the announced turn to the Pacific Alliance, the TPP and the restoration of the “free trade” paradigm. To sum up, the awakening the FTAA spirit.
However, self criticism of progressive governments on the steps that they should have taken in the preview stage, mostly on economic articulation, is still pending (what happened with the Bank of the South, signed in 2007, that has never began?). The truth is that in this new times in Latin America the correlation of forces is quite different: the projects that are hegemonic seek to go back on the integration process of the past 15 years and have translated to the regional scenery, the logics and the political conception that countries have been imposing. They are here to reorient the way, because their north is the North.
Mercosur: Uruguay and Ecuador Support Venezuela
Resumen Latinoamericano / The Dawn News
August 7, 2016
Uruguay and Ecuador gave their view on the issue of Venezuela’s presidency of the Mercosur. Uruguayan President Tabaré Vázquez said that dialogue is the best tool to get the organism out of the critical situation it’s in, due to the anti-democratic stance of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay against Venezuela taking up the semestral presidency. Meanwhile, President Rafael Correa justified the legitimacy of Caracas’ presidency by reminding everybody that the rules state that the temporary presidency is held in alphabetical order.
Vázquez replied to the criticism that he received for having ended his presidency last July, because some actors expected him to remain in the seat after his term had officially ended until the controversy had been settled. “Uruguay is a free and sovereign country, that acts with accountability and responsibility and is not subjected to any sort of pressure”, Vázquez said. Uruguay left the presidency of the bloc when the six-month term concluded, without a formal act of transferral to Venezuela, which led Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay to affirm that the seat had remained vacant.
Tabaré Vázquez clarified that he will continue to dialogue with Mercosur partners to reach an agreement, which will involve different levels: technical experts, counselors, chancellors, and, in due time, also presidents.
Besides, he informed that the Mercosur’s activity has not stopped and that the norms of the bloc are still in force and being followed. On Venezuela, Vázquez said that at the time this country is a regular member of the regional bloc and that, unless a democratic clause is applied, it will continue to be a part of the Mercosur.
For its part, Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador (which is not a member of Mercosur), said, in a TV interview, that he didn’t see why there was a problem with Caracas taking on the leadership. The head of State affirmed that, despite individual opinions on the government of Venezuela, the rules of the game have to be followed, and they are clear. “It’s Venezuela’s time to hold the pro-tempore presidency of the Mercosur, and whatever complaints Brazil has have to be discussed within the bloc, but denying the Presidency is not viable”, he remarked.
The arguments provided by the countries that oppose Venezuela’s presidency are: the economic crisis that the country is going through and the alleged human rights violations by the government, which would render Venezuela materially and ethically unable to exercise the presidency of the organism. However, to this date they haven’t submitted any formal request nor clarified which specific rule Venezuela is violating.
Vázquez replied to the criticism that he received for having ended his presidency last July, because some actors expected him to remain in the seat after his term had officially ended until the controversy had been settled. “Uruguay is a free and sovereign country, that acts with accountability and responsibility and is not subjected to any sort of pressure”, Vázquez said. Uruguay left the presidency of the bloc when the six-month term concluded, without a formal act of transferral to Venezuela, which led Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay to affirm that the seat had remained vacant.
Tabaré Vázquez clarified that he will continue to dialogue with Mercosur partners to reach an agreement, which will involve different levels: technical experts, counselors, chancellors, and, in due time, also presidents.
Besides, he informed that the Mercosur’s activity has not stopped and that the norms of the bloc are still in force and being followed. On Venezuela, Vázquez said that at the time this country is a regular member of the regional bloc and that, unless a democratic clause is applied, it will continue to be a part of the Mercosur.
For its part, Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador (which is not a member of Mercosur), said, in a TV interview, that he didn’t see why there was a problem with Caracas taking on the leadership. The head of State affirmed that, despite individual opinions on the government of Venezuela, the rules of the game have to be followed, and they are clear. “It’s Venezuela’s time to hold the pro-tempore presidency of the Mercosur, and whatever complaints Brazil has have to be discussed within the bloc, but denying the Presidency is not viable”, he remarked.
The arguments provided by the countries that oppose Venezuela’s presidency are: the economic crisis that the country is going through and the alleged human rights violations by the government, which would render Venezuela materially and ethically unable to exercise the presidency of the organism. However, to this date they haven’t submitted any formal request nor clarified which specific rule Venezuela is violating.
Why are Macri, Temer and Cartes
sabotaging the Mercosur?
Jeferson Miola / Source: Surversion.Uy / The Dawn News
August 2, 2016
The rules of the Mercosur are clear regarding the rotatory system to elect pro tempore presidents. Despite this, the reactionary governments of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay simply disregarded the norms in force to prevent Venezuela from temporarily ruling the presidency of the bloc. With the impasse they create, they reach the main objective which is to paralyze and weaken the Mercosur.
The 1991 Asuncion Treaty is the foundational document of the Mercosur bloc. Article 12 of this treaty establishes that “the Presidency of the Council will be exercised in a rotary manner and in alphabetical order by the Member States, for six-month long periods”.
The Ouro Preto Protocol, signed in 1994 in the Brazilian city with the same name, establishes the same thing in Article 5: “the Presidency of the Common Market Council will be exercised in a rotary manner and in alphabetical order by the Member States, for six-month long periods”. The combination of these two rules of the Mercosur lead to no other conclusion than that Venezuela should be the leader from the bloc for the second semester of 2016.
The Uruguayan government has already stated that it defends the institutional order and therefore won’t allow the coupist alliance that intends to subvert the Mercosur.
Venezuela’s government has already declared itself in exercise of the seat, after the Uruguayan government ended its term. For the first time in 25 years of history, there was no solemnity in the passing of the baton, because, sadly, the governments of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay prevented the official ceremony from being carried out —in an antidemocratic action that doesn’t affect the legitimacy of Venezuela’s leadership of the Mercosur.
Why are the governments of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay sabotaging and attacking the Mercosur? Which are the interests behind this decision that is disintegrating the continent and debilitating the geopolitical position of every member country in the global context?
The Mercosur always posed challenges for the great world powers that wanted to intervene in the region. Furthermore, the Mercosur was the main promoter of the processes of regional integration that gave birth to the Unasur, the Celac and other agreements, that in the last decade managed to multiply by 12 the number of interregional trades and investments.
This integrationist phenomenon allowed for the preservation of jobs, rent and social rights that could otherwise be exported to the North (which is desireable by the standards of the current governments of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay).
The Mercosur sabotage will leave each country in particular and the whole region in general in a state of fragility and subordination in the geopolitical chess.
In this context, where both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton promise to abandon the ambitious North American project of the Trans Pacific Agreement, neocolonialists seem to be preparing the ground for a new imperial invasion in the region.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is the dream of the coupist government and oligarchy of Brazil, and it might be benefitted with the sabotage of the Mercosur and the coupist attack to regional integration.
The 1991 Asuncion Treaty is the foundational document of the Mercosur bloc. Article 12 of this treaty establishes that “the Presidency of the Council will be exercised in a rotary manner and in alphabetical order by the Member States, for six-month long periods”.
The Ouro Preto Protocol, signed in 1994 in the Brazilian city with the same name, establishes the same thing in Article 5: “the Presidency of the Common Market Council will be exercised in a rotary manner and in alphabetical order by the Member States, for six-month long periods”. The combination of these two rules of the Mercosur lead to no other conclusion than that Venezuela should be the leader from the bloc for the second semester of 2016.
The Uruguayan government has already stated that it defends the institutional order and therefore won’t allow the coupist alliance that intends to subvert the Mercosur.
Venezuela’s government has already declared itself in exercise of the seat, after the Uruguayan government ended its term. For the first time in 25 years of history, there was no solemnity in the passing of the baton, because, sadly, the governments of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay prevented the official ceremony from being carried out —in an antidemocratic action that doesn’t affect the legitimacy of Venezuela’s leadership of the Mercosur.
Why are the governments of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay sabotaging and attacking the Mercosur? Which are the interests behind this decision that is disintegrating the continent and debilitating the geopolitical position of every member country in the global context?
The Mercosur always posed challenges for the great world powers that wanted to intervene in the region. Furthermore, the Mercosur was the main promoter of the processes of regional integration that gave birth to the Unasur, the Celac and other agreements, that in the last decade managed to multiply by 12 the number of interregional trades and investments.
This integrationist phenomenon allowed for the preservation of jobs, rent and social rights that could otherwise be exported to the North (which is desireable by the standards of the current governments of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay).
The Mercosur sabotage will leave each country in particular and the whole region in general in a state of fragility and subordination in the geopolitical chess.
In this context, where both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton promise to abandon the ambitious North American project of the Trans Pacific Agreement, neocolonialists seem to be preparing the ground for a new imperial invasion in the region.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is the dream of the coupist government and oligarchy of Brazil, and it might be benefitted with the sabotage of the Mercosur and the coupist attack to regional integration.
Venezuela asumió la presidencia del Mercosur: de nada sirvió la pataleta de Brasil y Paraguay
Resumen Latinoamericano
30 julio 2016
Venezuela emitió un comunicado en el que informó a los países socios del Mercosur que asume la presidencia pro témpore de la organización regional, luego de que Uruguay dejara ayer oficialmente el puesto vacante.
La decisión venezolana ocurre a pesar de que los cancilleres cancelaran la reunión pautada para hoy en la que se buscaba llegar un acuerdo ante la oposición de Brasil y Paraguay para que la republicana bolivariana quede al frente del organismo.
La Cancillería bolivariana sostiene que su decisión tiene “fundamento en el artículo 12 del tratado de Asunción y en correspondencia con el artículo 5 del Protocolo Ouro Preto”.
En la carta se recalca que estos artículos son los “únicos instrumentos normativos fundacionales que regulan la procedencia y continuidad de la Presidencia Pro Témpore” del Mercosur.
Ayer, el gobierno uruguayo dio por terminado su período en la presidencia pro témpore del Mercosur, sin que Brasil y Paraguay acepten la asunción de Venezuela, como lo ordena el estatuto de la entidad regional.
La canciller venezolana, Delcy Rodríguez, había considerado como “patadas de ahogado” la negativa de Brasil y Paraguay asuma la presidencia y aclaró que los estatutos del Mercosur solo establecen dos condiciones para traspasar la presidencia: que el país que la ejerce -en este caso Uruguay- haya completado su período- y que la sucesión se dé por orden alfabético.
La decisión venezolana ocurre a pesar de que los cancilleres cancelaran la reunión pautada para hoy en la que se buscaba llegar un acuerdo ante la oposición de Brasil y Paraguay para que la republicana bolivariana quede al frente del organismo.
La Cancillería bolivariana sostiene que su decisión tiene “fundamento en el artículo 12 del tratado de Asunción y en correspondencia con el artículo 5 del Protocolo Ouro Preto”.
En la carta se recalca que estos artículos son los “únicos instrumentos normativos fundacionales que regulan la procedencia y continuidad de la Presidencia Pro Témpore” del Mercosur.
Ayer, el gobierno uruguayo dio por terminado su período en la presidencia pro témpore del Mercosur, sin que Brasil y Paraguay acepten la asunción de Venezuela, como lo ordena el estatuto de la entidad regional.
La canciller venezolana, Delcy Rodríguez, había considerado como “patadas de ahogado” la negativa de Brasil y Paraguay asuma la presidencia y aclaró que los estatutos del Mercosur solo establecen dos condiciones para traspasar la presidencia: que el país que la ejerce -en este caso Uruguay- haya completado su período- y que la sucesión se dé por orden alfabético.
Washington’s ‘New Managers’ in Latin America: Oligarchs, Bankers and Swindlers
By Prof. James Petras - Information Clearing House
July 15, 2016
The European Union is controlled by an oligarchy, which dictates socio-economic and political decisions according to the interests of bankers and multi-national business. The central organs of power, the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have systematically imposed austerity programs that have degraded working conditions, welfare programs, and wages and salaries.
EU policies demanding the free immigration of non-unionized workers to compete with native workers have undermined wage and workplace protections, union membership and class solidarity. EU financial policies have enhanced the power of finance capital and eroded public ownership of strategic economic sectors.The European Union has imposed fiscal policies set by non-elected oligarchs over and against the will and interests of the democratic electorate. As a result of EU dictates, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland have suffered double-digit unemployment rates, as well as massive reductions of pensions, health and educational budgets. A huge transfer of wealth and concentration of decision-making has occurred in Europe.
Rule by EU fiat is the epitome of oligarchical rule.
Despite the EU’s reactionary structure and policies, it is supported by Conservatives, Liberals, Social Democrats, Greens and numerous Leftist academics, who back elite interests in exchange for marginal economic rewards.
Arguments for the EU and their Critics
The pro-EU power elite base their arguments on concrete socio-economic interests, thinly disguised by fraudulent ideological claims.
The ideological arguments backing the EU follow several lines of deception.
They claim that ‘countries’ benefit because of large-scale transfers of EU payments. They omit mentioning that the EU elite secures the privatization and denationalization of strategic industries, banks, mass media and other lucrative national assets. They further omit to mention that the EU elite gains control of domestic markets and low wage labor.
The EU argues that it provides ‘free movements’ of capital, technology and labor - omitting the fact that the flows and returns of capital exclusively benefit the powerful imperial centers to the detriment of less advanced countries and that technology is controlled and designed by the dominant elites which also monopolize the profits. Furthermore, the ‘free flow of labor’ prejudices skilled productive sectors in less developed countries while reducing salaries, wages and benefits among skilled workers in the imperial centers.
The EU : A Self-Elected Dictatorship of Empire Builders
‘Integration into the EU’ is not a union of democratic participants; the decision-making structure is tightly controlled by non-elected elites who pursue policies that maximize profits, by relocating enterprises in low tax, low wage, non- unionized regions.
European integration is an integral part of ‘globalization’, which is a euphemism for the unimpeded acquisition of wealth, assets and financial resources by the top 1%, shared, in part, with their supporters among the top 25%.
The EU promotes the concentration of capital through the merger and acquisition of multi-national firms which bankrupt local and national, medium and small scale industries.
Political and Academic Satraps of the EU Elites
The European Union’s oligarchy has organized a small army of highly paid politicians, functionaries, advisers, experts and researchers who support the European Union in a manner not unlike NGO workers in the developing world - answerable only to their ‘foreign’ paymasters.
Numerous Social Democrats draw stipends, travel expenses, lucrative fees and salaries as members of commissions and serve on impotent ‘legislative’ assemblies.
Academics advise, consent —and draw duplicate salaries from membership in the EU bureaucracy. Journalists and academics ‘front’ for the EU oligarchy by playing a leading propaganda role. For example, they have been busy slandering British pro-democracy, anti-EU voters by (1) calling for a new referendum and (2) questioning the right of the working class electorate to vote on issues like the recent EU referendum.
The leading financial press adopts a demagogic pose accusing the pro-democracy voters of being ‘racists’, ‘nativists’, or worse, for ‘opposing Eastern European immigration’.
In fact, the vast majority of workers do not oppose immigrants in general, but especially those who have taken once-unionized jobs at wages far below the going rates for established workers, on terms dictated by employers and with no ties or commitment to the community and society. For decades British workers accepted immigrant labor from Ireland because they joined unions at wage rates negotiated by union leaders, won by long workers struggle and voted with the majority of English workers. Under the EU, Britain was flooded with Eastern European workers who acted as ’scabs’ displacing skilled British workers who were told it was ‘progress’. This acted to destroy the prospects of their own children entering a stable, skilled labor market.
The financial press’s lurid descriptions of the British workers’ anti-EU ‘racism’ against Polish immigrant labor ignores the long history of Warsaw’s virulent hostility to immigrants–namely the refugees from the wars in the Middle East. The Polish government and population exhibit the most furious opposition to sheltering the thousands of Middle East and African war refugees, while claiming that they are not ‘Christians’ or might pose cultural or even terrorist threats against the ethnically pure Polish population.
Some of the British workers’ hostility toward Polish workers has a recognized historical basis. They have not forgotten that Polish strike breakers took the side of ‘Iron Lady’ Thatcher’s militarized assault against unionized UK miners during the great coal strikes and even offered to export coal to aid the Conservative government in breaking the strike. As such, EU-Polish immigrant workers are not likely to integrate into the militant British working class culture.
The Polish regime’s aggressive promotion of the economic sanctions against Russia has further undermined English jobs linked to that large and growing market.
The financial press ignores the fact that Polish immigrants ’scab’ on unionized British workers in the construction industry, undercutting long-established UK plumbers, electrical workers, carpenters and laborers - who have multiple generational ties to their communities and work. The EU elites use the importation of Polish workers to strengthen the reactionary labor policies of the employers
After the fall of Communism, Polish workers backed a succession of right-wing regimes in Warsaw, which privatized and denationalized industries and eroded their welfare system leading to their own impoverishment. Poles, instead of fighting against these neo-liberal regimes at home, headed for England and have been helping the British bosses ever since in their own anti-labor campaigns to reduce wages and decrease worker access to decent, affordable housing, public services, education and medical care.
The Eastern Europeans became the willing recruits of the EU reserve army of labor to raise profits for industrial and finance capital thus further concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the British oligarchs.
To label British workers’ antipathy to these EU policies over the free entry of cheap immigrant labor, as ‘racist’, is a blatant case of blaming workers for opposing naked capitalist profiteering. It is not hard to imagine how the Poles would react if skilled Syrian electricians were taking their jobs!
The pro-EU prostitute press claims that the pro-democracy voters are ‘anti-globalization’ and a threat to England’s living standards and financial stability.
In fact, labor votes in favor of trade but against the relocation of English industry overseas. Labor votes for for greater investment in the UK and greater regional diversity of productive, job-creating sectors, as opposed to the concentration of capital and wealth in the parasitic finance, insurance and real estate sectors concentrated in the City of London.
The EU-City of London-financial oligarchy have priced labor out of the housing market by promoting the massive construction of high-end luxury condos for ‘their kind of immigrant’, i.e. the millionaire and billionaire Chinese, Russian, Indian, Eastern European and US plutocrats who flock to London’s famous tax-evasion and money-laundering expertise.
The scribes of the EU-City oligarchy who claim that exit from the EU will lead to a cataclysmic breakdown are blatantly scaremongering. In fact, the stock and bond market, which declined for less than a week, rebounded sharply, as trade, production and demand were scarcely affected by the vote.
The hysteria-peddlers among the financial press resounded . . . in the minds and pockets of the City of London speculators. They rightly feared that their own lucrative financial operations could relocate overseas.
Conclusion
If and when the EU - City end their oligarchical control over the British economy, workers will gain an opportunity to debate and elect freely their own representatives and have a say in their own government. Leaving the EU is just the first step. The next move will be to change the rules for immigrant labor to accord with the standards of wages and conditions set by UK trade union organizations.
The following steps would include subordinating the banks to the needs of industry, investment in public housing for workers and the development of local technology for domestic producers.
The cleavage between productive labor and the EU parasites and their political hangers-on requires a new political leadership with a democratic foreign policy, which precludes overseas wars and imperial alliances.
The break with the EU logically and persuasively argues for a break with NATO and an opening toward free trade with Russia, China and the new dynamic global markets. The end of the EU can help weaken the strategic partnership between the European and City of London oligarchs. No doubt, the latter will not go without a class war of unprecedented ferocity, involving financial lockouts, manufactured fiscal crises, street mobs and parliamentary coups at the top of their agenda.
Only if the democratic electoral majority becomes a cohesive and combative class movement, in and out of Parliament, can they convert the referendum from a temporary electoral win to a stable basis for structural transformation.
Only a democratic majority can implement a fair and equitable immigration policy that strengthens labor and welfare policies and which would be based on the traditional values of British trade unionism and not on some criteria parroted by the ‘house servants’ for the lords of the EU-London ‘Downton Abbey’.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
EU policies demanding the free immigration of non-unionized workers to compete with native workers have undermined wage and workplace protections, union membership and class solidarity. EU financial policies have enhanced the power of finance capital and eroded public ownership of strategic economic sectors.The European Union has imposed fiscal policies set by non-elected oligarchs over and against the will and interests of the democratic electorate. As a result of EU dictates, Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland have suffered double-digit unemployment rates, as well as massive reductions of pensions, health and educational budgets. A huge transfer of wealth and concentration of decision-making has occurred in Europe.
Rule by EU fiat is the epitome of oligarchical rule.
Despite the EU’s reactionary structure and policies, it is supported by Conservatives, Liberals, Social Democrats, Greens and numerous Leftist academics, who back elite interests in exchange for marginal economic rewards.
Arguments for the EU and their Critics
The pro-EU power elite base their arguments on concrete socio-economic interests, thinly disguised by fraudulent ideological claims.
The ideological arguments backing the EU follow several lines of deception.
They claim that ‘countries’ benefit because of large-scale transfers of EU payments. They omit mentioning that the EU elite secures the privatization and denationalization of strategic industries, banks, mass media and other lucrative national assets. They further omit to mention that the EU elite gains control of domestic markets and low wage labor.
The EU argues that it provides ‘free movements’ of capital, technology and labor - omitting the fact that the flows and returns of capital exclusively benefit the powerful imperial centers to the detriment of less advanced countries and that technology is controlled and designed by the dominant elites which also monopolize the profits. Furthermore, the ‘free flow of labor’ prejudices skilled productive sectors in less developed countries while reducing salaries, wages and benefits among skilled workers in the imperial centers.
The EU : A Self-Elected Dictatorship of Empire Builders
‘Integration into the EU’ is not a union of democratic participants; the decision-making structure is tightly controlled by non-elected elites who pursue policies that maximize profits, by relocating enterprises in low tax, low wage, non- unionized regions.
European integration is an integral part of ‘globalization’, which is a euphemism for the unimpeded acquisition of wealth, assets and financial resources by the top 1%, shared, in part, with their supporters among the top 25%.
The EU promotes the concentration of capital through the merger and acquisition of multi-national firms which bankrupt local and national, medium and small scale industries.
Political and Academic Satraps of the EU Elites
The European Union’s oligarchy has organized a small army of highly paid politicians, functionaries, advisers, experts and researchers who support the European Union in a manner not unlike NGO workers in the developing world - answerable only to their ‘foreign’ paymasters.
Numerous Social Democrats draw stipends, travel expenses, lucrative fees and salaries as members of commissions and serve on impotent ‘legislative’ assemblies.
Academics advise, consent —and draw duplicate salaries from membership in the EU bureaucracy. Journalists and academics ‘front’ for the EU oligarchy by playing a leading propaganda role. For example, they have been busy slandering British pro-democracy, anti-EU voters by (1) calling for a new referendum and (2) questioning the right of the working class electorate to vote on issues like the recent EU referendum.
The leading financial press adopts a demagogic pose accusing the pro-democracy voters of being ‘racists’, ‘nativists’, or worse, for ‘opposing Eastern European immigration’.
In fact, the vast majority of workers do not oppose immigrants in general, but especially those who have taken once-unionized jobs at wages far below the going rates for established workers, on terms dictated by employers and with no ties or commitment to the community and society. For decades British workers accepted immigrant labor from Ireland because they joined unions at wage rates negotiated by union leaders, won by long workers struggle and voted with the majority of English workers. Under the EU, Britain was flooded with Eastern European workers who acted as ’scabs’ displacing skilled British workers who were told it was ‘progress’. This acted to destroy the prospects of their own children entering a stable, skilled labor market.
The financial press’s lurid descriptions of the British workers’ anti-EU ‘racism’ against Polish immigrant labor ignores the long history of Warsaw’s virulent hostility to immigrants–namely the refugees from the wars in the Middle East. The Polish government and population exhibit the most furious opposition to sheltering the thousands of Middle East and African war refugees, while claiming that they are not ‘Christians’ or might pose cultural or even terrorist threats against the ethnically pure Polish population.
Some of the British workers’ hostility toward Polish workers has a recognized historical basis. They have not forgotten that Polish strike breakers took the side of ‘Iron Lady’ Thatcher’s militarized assault against unionized UK miners during the great coal strikes and even offered to export coal to aid the Conservative government in breaking the strike. As such, EU-Polish immigrant workers are not likely to integrate into the militant British working class culture.
The Polish regime’s aggressive promotion of the economic sanctions against Russia has further undermined English jobs linked to that large and growing market.
The financial press ignores the fact that Polish immigrants ’scab’ on unionized British workers in the construction industry, undercutting long-established UK plumbers, electrical workers, carpenters and laborers - who have multiple generational ties to their communities and work. The EU elites use the importation of Polish workers to strengthen the reactionary labor policies of the employers
After the fall of Communism, Polish workers backed a succession of right-wing regimes in Warsaw, which privatized and denationalized industries and eroded their welfare system leading to their own impoverishment. Poles, instead of fighting against these neo-liberal regimes at home, headed for England and have been helping the British bosses ever since in their own anti-labor campaigns to reduce wages and decrease worker access to decent, affordable housing, public services, education and medical care.
The Eastern Europeans became the willing recruits of the EU reserve army of labor to raise profits for industrial and finance capital thus further concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the British oligarchs.
To label British workers’ antipathy to these EU policies over the free entry of cheap immigrant labor, as ‘racist’, is a blatant case of blaming workers for opposing naked capitalist profiteering. It is not hard to imagine how the Poles would react if skilled Syrian electricians were taking their jobs!
The pro-EU prostitute press claims that the pro-democracy voters are ‘anti-globalization’ and a threat to England’s living standards and financial stability.
In fact, labor votes in favor of trade but against the relocation of English industry overseas. Labor votes for for greater investment in the UK and greater regional diversity of productive, job-creating sectors, as opposed to the concentration of capital and wealth in the parasitic finance, insurance and real estate sectors concentrated in the City of London.
The EU-City of London-financial oligarchy have priced labor out of the housing market by promoting the massive construction of high-end luxury condos for ‘their kind of immigrant’, i.e. the millionaire and billionaire Chinese, Russian, Indian, Eastern European and US plutocrats who flock to London’s famous tax-evasion and money-laundering expertise.
The scribes of the EU-City oligarchy who claim that exit from the EU will lead to a cataclysmic breakdown are blatantly scaremongering. In fact, the stock and bond market, which declined for less than a week, rebounded sharply, as trade, production and demand were scarcely affected by the vote.
The hysteria-peddlers among the financial press resounded . . . in the minds and pockets of the City of London speculators. They rightly feared that their own lucrative financial operations could relocate overseas.
Conclusion
If and when the EU - City end their oligarchical control over the British economy, workers will gain an opportunity to debate and elect freely their own representatives and have a say in their own government. Leaving the EU is just the first step. The next move will be to change the rules for immigrant labor to accord with the standards of wages and conditions set by UK trade union organizations.
The following steps would include subordinating the banks to the needs of industry, investment in public housing for workers and the development of local technology for domestic producers.
The cleavage between productive labor and the EU parasites and their political hangers-on requires a new political leadership with a democratic foreign policy, which precludes overseas wars and imperial alliances.
The break with the EU logically and persuasively argues for a break with NATO and an opening toward free trade with Russia, China and the new dynamic global markets. The end of the EU can help weaken the strategic partnership between the European and City of London oligarchs. No doubt, the latter will not go without a class war of unprecedented ferocity, involving financial lockouts, manufactured fiscal crises, street mobs and parliamentary coups at the top of their agenda.
Only if the democratic electoral majority becomes a cohesive and combative class movement, in and out of Parliament, can they convert the referendum from a temporary electoral win to a stable basis for structural transformation.
Only a democratic majority can implement a fair and equitable immigration policy that strengthens labor and welfare policies and which would be based on the traditional values of British trade unionism and not on some criteria parroted by the ‘house servants’ for the lords of the EU-London ‘Downton Abbey’.
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
Ideología y hegemonia en el debate politico Latinoamericano
Por: Ricardo Arturo Salgado Bonilla - Resumen Latinoamericano
11 de Julio 2016
El tema de la ideología es más bien utilizado y aprovechado por la derecha para manipular las sociedades, y para satanizar los planteamientos de la izquierda.
Es muy común escuchar a algunos dirigentes políticos, o incluso a académicos, que justifican sus traspiés con frases como “cada pueblo tiene el gobernante que se merece”, o “los pueblos son malagradecidos”. Este no es un tema nuevo, pero su discusión sigue siendo de vital importancia para la consolidación de procesos revolucionarios en cualquier etapa en que se encuentren.
Digamos que Marx y su obra provocan posiciones diversas de debate: los que lo veneran y tratan como un ser divino de pensamiento final; los que lo adversan y pertenecen a las elites, que dedican tiempo y recursos a su estudio, y aquellos que se ubican a la derecha y son anti comunistas por definición, que se plantan en cualquier debate, con los argumentos más descabellados, incluso la descalificación personal. Menos suerte tiene la obra de Gramsci y sus categorías que son ampliamente estudiadas en centros de pensamiento del poder de las elites gobernantes en el mundo, pero poco entendidas por quienes aspiramos a un mundo mejor. Sin embargo, de su estudio y entendimiento depende mucho nuestra capacidad de trazar una ruta revolucionaria.
El tema de la ideología es más bien utilizado y aprovechado por la derecha para manipular las sociedades, y para satanizar los planteamientos de la izquierda. Esto nos hace pensar que es necesario plantear un debate alrededor de la capacidad real y la necesidad que tenemos de entender en que estamos. Esto se hace crucial cuando caemos en cuenta de la relación indisoluble que existe entre esta y la hegemonía, y de ambas con el poder.
Para comenzar, digamos que vivimos en sociedades capitalistas, con mayor o menor grado de desarrollo, y con un lugar en el mapa de la actividad económica. Todas nuestras sociedades viven bajo las ideas que permiten el funcionamiento del sistema, cuya misión fundamental es reproducir el capital; todas esas ideas tienden entonces a dar soporte a la forma en que se genera el proceso de reproducción. Por ejemplo, la usura, condenada en otros tiempos, es hoy una actividad normal, y moralmente inserta en nuestra visión del mundo. Es gracias a todas esas ideas que se reproduce el sistema, por lo tanto, son ellas mismas la que le permiten ser un sistema hegemónico.
La cultura, las modas, la música, la literatura, y todas las fuentes de ideas dirigidas a las masas están cargadas de conceptos que soportan la existencia del sistema y todas sus aberraciones. Incluso la idea de libertad, de derechos, de justicia, están condicionadas de tal forma que a nadie conmueve, para el caso, que un juez falle en favor de un banco y despoje una familia de su vivienda y la deje en la calle. De hecho, es más común que la gente piense con naturalidad “cuando me tocara a mí”. Pero en ninguna parte de esa ideología dominante aparecen argumentos que muestren el carácter inhumano y auto destructivo del sistema.
Este sistema es tal, que nos plantean el predominio del “libre mercado” como la panacea, como si este fuera un señor que sabe cómo podremos vivir mejor todos. Bajo la egida de este sistema hegemónico, se justifica su dominio sobre la riqueza, y los medios que utilice para mantenerlos, reproducirlos y perpetuarlos. En este proceso, la ideología genera la legitimación del monopolio del uso de la fuerza por la clase dominante, y en este punto nos encontramos en presencia de eso que tanto mencionamos: el poder.
Puesto de otra manera, cuando alcanzamos el gobierno, nos encontramos en un entorno hostil que funciona bajo la ideología y la hegemonía de la clase dominante. Las leyes, el Estado, las instituciones, todo funciona con el propósito de mantener esa estructura de dominación. De ese modo, cuando llegamos al gobierno, comenzamos una guerra sin cuartel que se libra en un ámbito menos evidente: cotidianidad, la vida, las ideas de las personas. Entonces nos encontramos aun distantes del poder, y esto queda evidenciado por nuestra tendencia a condescender con los paradigmas válidos para el sistema.
En este sentido, hemos podido enfrentar varios desafíos bastante difíciles, en los cuales la mayoría de las veces optamos por coexistir con la hegemonía del enemigo. De hecho, mientras aquel nos define sin problemas y manifiesta sin reservas su propósito de destruirnos, nosotros tratamos de parecer mansas ovejas, hasta el punto de convertirnos en tales.
Los procesos progresistas en América Latina han traído bienestar a los pueblos de la región que no era imaginable hace apenas dos décadas, y, sin embargo, ese cambio material no ha sido acompañado de un proceso contra hegemónico, que promueva cambios de paradigmas, y que reemplace el consumismo predominante entre nosotros. No es raro que los ataques del enemigo vayan dirigidos a afectar justamente el consumo, la creación de necesidades y la proliferación de angustias relacionadas con el proceso de adquirir.
En algunos países que aún estamos en proceso de lucha por el gobierno, nos enfrentamos a menudo con la dificultad de que es lo que planteamos como alternativa al capitalismo. Siempre resulta más fácil decir que “es mejor agarrar lo bueno de cada sistema”, como si el asunto fuera una disputa entre el bien y el mal, o de conciliar a dios con el diablo. Nuestros economistas tienen grandes dificultades para imaginarse un mundo no capitalista, lo que se agrava cuando la derecha trae de regreso el tema del “fracaso” del socialismo real en Europa.
Aquí vienen cosas muy prácticas que debemos asimilar y debatir. Por ejemplo, cada vez que un hondureño común discute sobre los problemas domésticos, alguien, casi mágicamente, aparece mencionándole el fracaso del socialismo del siglo XXI y las penurias que pasan los venezolanos. Pocos hondureños saben que ninguno en este país ha tenido nunca acceso a todas las ventajas que ha traído la revolución bolivariana al pueblo venezolano. Todo este proceso se da en el imaginario, en el debate de las ideas.
Si nos preguntamos “fracasaron la revolución bolivariana y el socialismo del siglo XXI”, por ejemplo, la respuesta tendría que ser dividida. Simplemente los parámetros para valorar el éxito o fracaso dependen de los intereses de clase de cada quien. Seguramente la derecha venezolana pregona un supuesto fracaso, porque no termina de aceptar que el patrimonio de toda la nación sea distribuido de una forma más justa. Para la mayoría de los venezolanos, la revolución es profundamente exitosa, pero, aun así, muchos votan en favor de los intereses que apuntan a quitarles todo ¿Por qué?
Muchas personas de izquierda se aferran cuasi con religiosidad a la parte económica; argumentan que mientras la revolución coexista con la burguesía criminal, permita la propiedad privada y la libertad de empresa. Pero ¿será que, emprendiendo esa ruta, se cambiará la ideología predominante? Justamente las bases para una contrarrevolución son aquellas raíces que quedan en la mente de las sociedades, que se aferran a lo que han conocido siempre.
Indudablemente, sería irresponsable buscar fórmulas para recetar a los pueblos, pero la tarea de cambiar la ideología dominante es fundamental para completar un proceso revolucionario, que debe terminar, además, siendo hegemónico y controlando el poder. Además, es imperativo comprender que el proceso es dialéctico, esto significa, entre otras cosas, que el enemigo está siempre presente y activo; siempre conspirando para terminar lo que nosotros hacemos.
Es muy común escuchar a algunos dirigentes políticos, o incluso a académicos, que justifican sus traspiés con frases como “cada pueblo tiene el gobernante que se merece”, o “los pueblos son malagradecidos”. Este no es un tema nuevo, pero su discusión sigue siendo de vital importancia para la consolidación de procesos revolucionarios en cualquier etapa en que se encuentren.
Digamos que Marx y su obra provocan posiciones diversas de debate: los que lo veneran y tratan como un ser divino de pensamiento final; los que lo adversan y pertenecen a las elites, que dedican tiempo y recursos a su estudio, y aquellos que se ubican a la derecha y son anti comunistas por definición, que se plantan en cualquier debate, con los argumentos más descabellados, incluso la descalificación personal. Menos suerte tiene la obra de Gramsci y sus categorías que son ampliamente estudiadas en centros de pensamiento del poder de las elites gobernantes en el mundo, pero poco entendidas por quienes aspiramos a un mundo mejor. Sin embargo, de su estudio y entendimiento depende mucho nuestra capacidad de trazar una ruta revolucionaria.
El tema de la ideología es más bien utilizado y aprovechado por la derecha para manipular las sociedades, y para satanizar los planteamientos de la izquierda. Esto nos hace pensar que es necesario plantear un debate alrededor de la capacidad real y la necesidad que tenemos de entender en que estamos. Esto se hace crucial cuando caemos en cuenta de la relación indisoluble que existe entre esta y la hegemonía, y de ambas con el poder.
Para comenzar, digamos que vivimos en sociedades capitalistas, con mayor o menor grado de desarrollo, y con un lugar en el mapa de la actividad económica. Todas nuestras sociedades viven bajo las ideas que permiten el funcionamiento del sistema, cuya misión fundamental es reproducir el capital; todas esas ideas tienden entonces a dar soporte a la forma en que se genera el proceso de reproducción. Por ejemplo, la usura, condenada en otros tiempos, es hoy una actividad normal, y moralmente inserta en nuestra visión del mundo. Es gracias a todas esas ideas que se reproduce el sistema, por lo tanto, son ellas mismas la que le permiten ser un sistema hegemónico.
La cultura, las modas, la música, la literatura, y todas las fuentes de ideas dirigidas a las masas están cargadas de conceptos que soportan la existencia del sistema y todas sus aberraciones. Incluso la idea de libertad, de derechos, de justicia, están condicionadas de tal forma que a nadie conmueve, para el caso, que un juez falle en favor de un banco y despoje una familia de su vivienda y la deje en la calle. De hecho, es más común que la gente piense con naturalidad “cuando me tocara a mí”. Pero en ninguna parte de esa ideología dominante aparecen argumentos que muestren el carácter inhumano y auto destructivo del sistema.
Este sistema es tal, que nos plantean el predominio del “libre mercado” como la panacea, como si este fuera un señor que sabe cómo podremos vivir mejor todos. Bajo la egida de este sistema hegemónico, se justifica su dominio sobre la riqueza, y los medios que utilice para mantenerlos, reproducirlos y perpetuarlos. En este proceso, la ideología genera la legitimación del monopolio del uso de la fuerza por la clase dominante, y en este punto nos encontramos en presencia de eso que tanto mencionamos: el poder.
Puesto de otra manera, cuando alcanzamos el gobierno, nos encontramos en un entorno hostil que funciona bajo la ideología y la hegemonía de la clase dominante. Las leyes, el Estado, las instituciones, todo funciona con el propósito de mantener esa estructura de dominación. De ese modo, cuando llegamos al gobierno, comenzamos una guerra sin cuartel que se libra en un ámbito menos evidente: cotidianidad, la vida, las ideas de las personas. Entonces nos encontramos aun distantes del poder, y esto queda evidenciado por nuestra tendencia a condescender con los paradigmas válidos para el sistema.
En este sentido, hemos podido enfrentar varios desafíos bastante difíciles, en los cuales la mayoría de las veces optamos por coexistir con la hegemonía del enemigo. De hecho, mientras aquel nos define sin problemas y manifiesta sin reservas su propósito de destruirnos, nosotros tratamos de parecer mansas ovejas, hasta el punto de convertirnos en tales.
Los procesos progresistas en América Latina han traído bienestar a los pueblos de la región que no era imaginable hace apenas dos décadas, y, sin embargo, ese cambio material no ha sido acompañado de un proceso contra hegemónico, que promueva cambios de paradigmas, y que reemplace el consumismo predominante entre nosotros. No es raro que los ataques del enemigo vayan dirigidos a afectar justamente el consumo, la creación de necesidades y la proliferación de angustias relacionadas con el proceso de adquirir.
En algunos países que aún estamos en proceso de lucha por el gobierno, nos enfrentamos a menudo con la dificultad de que es lo que planteamos como alternativa al capitalismo. Siempre resulta más fácil decir que “es mejor agarrar lo bueno de cada sistema”, como si el asunto fuera una disputa entre el bien y el mal, o de conciliar a dios con el diablo. Nuestros economistas tienen grandes dificultades para imaginarse un mundo no capitalista, lo que se agrava cuando la derecha trae de regreso el tema del “fracaso” del socialismo real en Europa.
Aquí vienen cosas muy prácticas que debemos asimilar y debatir. Por ejemplo, cada vez que un hondureño común discute sobre los problemas domésticos, alguien, casi mágicamente, aparece mencionándole el fracaso del socialismo del siglo XXI y las penurias que pasan los venezolanos. Pocos hondureños saben que ninguno en este país ha tenido nunca acceso a todas las ventajas que ha traído la revolución bolivariana al pueblo venezolano. Todo este proceso se da en el imaginario, en el debate de las ideas.
Si nos preguntamos “fracasaron la revolución bolivariana y el socialismo del siglo XXI”, por ejemplo, la respuesta tendría que ser dividida. Simplemente los parámetros para valorar el éxito o fracaso dependen de los intereses de clase de cada quien. Seguramente la derecha venezolana pregona un supuesto fracaso, porque no termina de aceptar que el patrimonio de toda la nación sea distribuido de una forma más justa. Para la mayoría de los venezolanos, la revolución es profundamente exitosa, pero, aun así, muchos votan en favor de los intereses que apuntan a quitarles todo ¿Por qué?
Muchas personas de izquierda se aferran cuasi con religiosidad a la parte económica; argumentan que mientras la revolución coexista con la burguesía criminal, permita la propiedad privada y la libertad de empresa. Pero ¿será que, emprendiendo esa ruta, se cambiará la ideología predominante? Justamente las bases para una contrarrevolución son aquellas raíces que quedan en la mente de las sociedades, que se aferran a lo que han conocido siempre.
Indudablemente, sería irresponsable buscar fórmulas para recetar a los pueblos, pero la tarea de cambiar la ideología dominante es fundamental para completar un proceso revolucionario, que debe terminar, además, siendo hegemónico y controlando el poder. Además, es imperativo comprender que el proceso es dialéctico, esto significa, entre otras cosas, que el enemigo está siempre presente y activo; siempre conspirando para terminar lo que nosotros hacemos.
Evo: “La Alianza del Pacífico es el proyecto del imperio que quiere resucitar el ALCA”
Resumen Latinoamericano
6 de julio de 2016
El presidente Evo Morales aseguró el martes que la Alianza del Pacífico es un “proyecto del imperio” que pretende resucitar la Alianza de Libre Comercio para las América (ALCA), último “derrotado por los pueblos en 2005”.
“La Alianza del Pacífico es el proyecto del imperio que quiere resucitar el Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA)”, escribió el Mandatario en su cuenta de Twitter: @evoespueblo.
El Jefe de Estado recordó que el ALCA fue derrotado en 2005, hecho trascendental en la historia de la nueva Latinoamérica y aseguró que los pueblos nuevamente derrotarán un proyecto de privatización y saqueo de los recursos naturales.
“Así como se derrotó el ALCA en 2005, nuestros pueblos derrotarán el proyecto de privatización y saqueo de nuestros recursos naturales”, sostuvo en otro mensaje en la red social.
La Alianza del Pacífico es una iniciativa de integración regional formada por Chile, Colombia, México y Perú, oficialmente creada el 28 de abril de 2011.
Uno de sus objetivos es construir, de manera participativa y consensuada, un área de integración profunda para avanzar progresivamente hacia la libre circulación de bienes, servicios, capitales, personas y economía.
En tanto, el ALCA fue un proyecto de Estados Unidos, México y Canadá, que pretendía impulsar el comercio entre las regiones reduciendo los aranceles la competitividad, la desaparición de monopolios, la mejora del nivel de bienestar de la población y un desarrollo de las infraestructuras.
Según medios de prensa, el ALCA despertó amplias críticas en todos los países americanos, al punto que se formó un movimiento continental opositor bajo la consigna de “¡No al ALCA!”, integrado por gobiernos, organizaciones sindicales y sociales, que lograron paralizar la puesta en marcha del ALCA en la IV Cumbre de las Américas realizada en Mar del Plata en noviembre de 2005.
“La Alianza del Pacífico es el proyecto del imperio que quiere resucitar el Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA)”, escribió el Mandatario en su cuenta de Twitter: @evoespueblo.
El Jefe de Estado recordó que el ALCA fue derrotado en 2005, hecho trascendental en la historia de la nueva Latinoamérica y aseguró que los pueblos nuevamente derrotarán un proyecto de privatización y saqueo de los recursos naturales.
“Así como se derrotó el ALCA en 2005, nuestros pueblos derrotarán el proyecto de privatización y saqueo de nuestros recursos naturales”, sostuvo en otro mensaje en la red social.
La Alianza del Pacífico es una iniciativa de integración regional formada por Chile, Colombia, México y Perú, oficialmente creada el 28 de abril de 2011.
Uno de sus objetivos es construir, de manera participativa y consensuada, un área de integración profunda para avanzar progresivamente hacia la libre circulación de bienes, servicios, capitales, personas y economía.
En tanto, el ALCA fue un proyecto de Estados Unidos, México y Canadá, que pretendía impulsar el comercio entre las regiones reduciendo los aranceles la competitividad, la desaparición de monopolios, la mejora del nivel de bienestar de la población y un desarrollo de las infraestructuras.
Según medios de prensa, el ALCA despertó amplias críticas en todos los países americanos, al punto que se formó un movimiento continental opositor bajo la consigna de “¡No al ALCA!”, integrado por gobiernos, organizaciones sindicales y sociales, que lograron paralizar la puesta en marcha del ALCA en la IV Cumbre de las Américas realizada en Mar del Plata en noviembre de 2005.
América Latina bajo los efectos del Nuevo
“Plan Cóndor”
Por Diego Olivera Evia - Barometro Internacional
Mayo 25, 2016
Luego del sueño de una década de la unidad latinoamericana, nuevos mecanismos de desestabilización, han logrado un golpe palaciego contra el gobierno de la presidenta Dilma Rusel, no fueron los argumentos legales, ni existían pruebas sobre hechos de corrupción, los objetivos era lograr el control de la economía, para los sectores de la burguesía y las trasnacionales, pudieran apoderarse, de Brasil, considerada como la quinta potencia económica del planeta.
Esta acciones contra la presidenta brasileña, son parte de una estrategia global, de un plan bien estructurado de la Doctrina Obama, que busca retomar el control de su patio trasero, como lo pretendió en la Cumbre de Panama del 2015, donde la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos, mantuvieron una postura solidaria y regional, contra los planes de EEUU, de aislar a Venezuela con la aplicación del decreto imperial, acusando a esta nación como un peligro para los intereses de los Estados Unidos.
Ante la renovación del decreto por un año más de este decreto, se puede asumir que la propuesta de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), bajo la batuta de Luis Almagro, ha desarrollado una campaña virulenta, contra el presidente Nicolás Maduro, como contra el gobierno bolivariano, bajo la egida de EEUU.
CONTINUE LEYENDO AQUI ....
Esta acciones contra la presidenta brasileña, son parte de una estrategia global, de un plan bien estructurado de la Doctrina Obama, que busca retomar el control de su patio trasero, como lo pretendió en la Cumbre de Panama del 2015, donde la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos, mantuvieron una postura solidaria y regional, contra los planes de EEUU, de aislar a Venezuela con la aplicación del decreto imperial, acusando a esta nación como un peligro para los intereses de los Estados Unidos.
Ante la renovación del decreto por un año más de este decreto, se puede asumir que la propuesta de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), bajo la batuta de Luis Almagro, ha desarrollado una campaña virulenta, contra el presidente Nicolás Maduro, como contra el gobierno bolivariano, bajo la egida de EEUU.
CONTINUE LEYENDO AQUI ....
Latin American Revolution Under Attack
By Asad Ismi - Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Monitor
May-June 2016
The Latin American revolution seemed unstoppable until recently. From El Savador in the north to Argentina in the south, leftists elected since 1998 have implemented the greatest redistribution of wealth in the region’s history, providing millions of jobs, free medical care and education, land reform and public subsidies, thereby lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty. Now, in Venezuela and Argentina, a resurgent right is using economic hardship to foment resentment and secure legislative victories.
In November 2015, after 12 years under a popular leftist government, voters in Argentina chose Mauricio Macri, right-wing former mayor of Buenos Aires, as their new president. A month later, Venezuelan voters handed 109 of 167 legislative seats to the centre-right Democratic Unity Roundtable (Mesa de la Unidad Democrática, or MUD)—the first time since 1999 that the United Socialists (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, or PSUV) have not held the assembly.
Venezuela’s angry opposition
Several factors converged to bring about the change in Venezuela. Foremost were the crash of oil prices, a campaign of economic sabotage or capital strike by local business elites (including price speculation and the hoarding of key consumer items to create scarcity) and a media war carried out by the political opposition in league with Washington. MUD picked up 2.4 million more votes in the December election than in 2010, while about two million PSUV supporters chose not to vote in protest of the government’s handling of the food shortages.
“These voters are upset by the way the government of Nicolás Maduro has handled the economy,” says Antonio Garcia, an analyst of Venezuelan and Latin American politics who recently stepped down as Venezuela’s ambassador to the European Union. “Maduro failed to effectively explain to the people how the economic sabotage against Venezuela negatively impacts them and failed to implement measures to effectively confront this economic war. The public had the perception that the Maduro government was not doing enough to counter this attack and I believe that perception did more harm to the PSUV that the economic situation itself.”
Garcia points out that the economic problem in Venezuela is not very different from what is happening in other Latin American countries, though it is felt more acutely.
CONTINUE READING HERE! Then go to page 49.
In November 2015, after 12 years under a popular leftist government, voters in Argentina chose Mauricio Macri, right-wing former mayor of Buenos Aires, as their new president. A month later, Venezuelan voters handed 109 of 167 legislative seats to the centre-right Democratic Unity Roundtable (Mesa de la Unidad Democrática, or MUD)—the first time since 1999 that the United Socialists (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, or PSUV) have not held the assembly.
Venezuela’s angry opposition
Several factors converged to bring about the change in Venezuela. Foremost were the crash of oil prices, a campaign of economic sabotage or capital strike by local business elites (including price speculation and the hoarding of key consumer items to create scarcity) and a media war carried out by the political opposition in league with Washington. MUD picked up 2.4 million more votes in the December election than in 2010, while about two million PSUV supporters chose not to vote in protest of the government’s handling of the food shortages.
“These voters are upset by the way the government of Nicolás Maduro has handled the economy,” says Antonio Garcia, an analyst of Venezuelan and Latin American politics who recently stepped down as Venezuela’s ambassador to the European Union. “Maduro failed to effectively explain to the people how the economic sabotage against Venezuela negatively impacts them and failed to implement measures to effectively confront this economic war. The public had the perception that the Maduro government was not doing enough to counter this attack and I believe that perception did more harm to the PSUV that the economic situation itself.”
Garcia points out that the economic problem in Venezuela is not very different from what is happening in other Latin American countries, though it is felt more acutely.
CONTINUE READING HERE! Then go to page 49.
Encuentro de Intelectuales en Defensa de la Humanidad, conferencia sobre Los Medios y su papel en los procesos de transformación en curso en los
países latinoamericanos
por Atilio Boron / Resumen Latinoamericano
CARACAS, 10 Abril 2016
En el Teatro Teres Carreño de Caracas, tuve ocasión de presenciar un panel que fue un verdadero lujo que, afortunadamente, estará disponible en la web si no hoy domingo sin falta mañana lunes. Para eso visitar el sitio de Telesur.
Integraron ese panel nada menos que Fernando Buen Abad (México y Argentina, profesor de las universidades nacionales de Lanús y Avellaneda); Blanca Eekhout Gómez (ex Ministra de Comunicaciones de Venezuela y co-fundadora de Catia TV); Pascual Serrano (España, fundador de Rebelión); Carlos Aznarez (Resumen Latinoamericanoa, Argentina) y Osvaldo León (ALAI, Ecuador).
El tema: los medios y su papel en los procesos de transformación en curso en los países latinoamericanos. A continuación unas pocas perlas que nos regalaron los panelistas:
Buen Abad: Según la UNESCO los medios de comunicación son la segunda industria que más dinero mueve a nivel mundial, sólo superada por el fenomenal negocio de la guerra y el tráfico de armas. En su inmensa mayoría los medios son negocios, altamente oligopolizados, que además de esclavizarnos, nos sacan el dinero y nos utilizan para que los enriquezcamos.
Blanca Eekhout Gómez: Los artífices del golpe de estado de Abril 2002 fueron los grandes medios. Los generales ensayaron su discurso en los estudios de la TV, o en las casas de los presentadores de la TV.
CONTINUE LEYENDO AQUI ...
Integraron ese panel nada menos que Fernando Buen Abad (México y Argentina, profesor de las universidades nacionales de Lanús y Avellaneda); Blanca Eekhout Gómez (ex Ministra de Comunicaciones de Venezuela y co-fundadora de Catia TV); Pascual Serrano (España, fundador de Rebelión); Carlos Aznarez (Resumen Latinoamericanoa, Argentina) y Osvaldo León (ALAI, Ecuador).
El tema: los medios y su papel en los procesos de transformación en curso en los países latinoamericanos. A continuación unas pocas perlas que nos regalaron los panelistas:
Buen Abad: Según la UNESCO los medios de comunicación son la segunda industria que más dinero mueve a nivel mundial, sólo superada por el fenomenal negocio de la guerra y el tráfico de armas. En su inmensa mayoría los medios son negocios, altamente oligopolizados, que además de esclavizarnos, nos sacan el dinero y nos utilizan para que los enriquezcamos.
Blanca Eekhout Gómez: Los artífices del golpe de estado de Abril 2002 fueron los grandes medios. Los generales ensayaron su discurso en los estudios de la TV, o en las casas de los presentadores de la TV.
CONTINUE LEYENDO AQUI ...
Will Latino Millennials Upend the
Democratic Establishment?
By Doug Johnson Hatlem - Counterpunch
April 8, 2016
Latina and Latino millennials could make up as much as 18% of the California Democratic Primary electorate. And they could push the Latino vote for Bernie Sanders to more than 2:1.
You read that right.
Hispanics 18-34 might make up nearly one fifth of all Democratic primary voters in California. Not 18% of the Latinx voters. Not 18% of the non-white voting block. Not Latina/o voters making up 18% of the electorate. 18% of the electorate as a whole.
Nearly seven million hispanic people are eligible to vote in California; 63% are under the age of 45 and 36% are 18-29. Eighteen percent of Democratic primary voters as a whole could come from a group that has gone for Bernie Sanders nationally at a rate of nearly 2:1 so far, perhaps even 3:1 in places like Chicago where Sanders won the hispanic vote statewide and carried majority Latino wards by a double digit margin.
In Another Path to Victory for Bernie Sanders I pegged Sanders’ realistic ceiling in California around 25%. This is not a forecast that he will actually get there. He may not make it beyond April 26 in a viable position. A ceiling is a ceiling and a floor is a floor. Neither demographics or the past are determinative; they can only give us inklings of what may be.
Regardless of whether Latinx millennials upend Democratic and American politics this election, by making up almost half of the largest growing segment of the electorate, according to Pew Research Center, it is almost certain that hispanics born after Ronald Reagan took office will have an increasingly out-sized impact on elections well beyond 2016.
CONTINUE READING HERE...
You read that right.
Hispanics 18-34 might make up nearly one fifth of all Democratic primary voters in California. Not 18% of the Latinx voters. Not 18% of the non-white voting block. Not Latina/o voters making up 18% of the electorate. 18% of the electorate as a whole.
Nearly seven million hispanic people are eligible to vote in California; 63% are under the age of 45 and 36% are 18-29. Eighteen percent of Democratic primary voters as a whole could come from a group that has gone for Bernie Sanders nationally at a rate of nearly 2:1 so far, perhaps even 3:1 in places like Chicago where Sanders won the hispanic vote statewide and carried majority Latino wards by a double digit margin.
In Another Path to Victory for Bernie Sanders I pegged Sanders’ realistic ceiling in California around 25%. This is not a forecast that he will actually get there. He may not make it beyond April 26 in a viable position. A ceiling is a ceiling and a floor is a floor. Neither demographics or the past are determinative; they can only give us inklings of what may be.
Regardless of whether Latinx millennials upend Democratic and American politics this election, by making up almost half of the largest growing segment of the electorate, according to Pew Research Center, it is almost certain that hispanics born after Ronald Reagan took office will have an increasingly out-sized impact on elections well beyond 2016.
CONTINUE READING HERE...
The War on Democracy in Latin America:
Interview with John Pilger
By Edu Montesanti - Counterpunch
March 25, 2016
After two decades of progressive governments spreading by the region with unprecedented economic, political and social gains, especially in human rights year by year recognized by the UN and several international organizations, Latin America faces the advance of aggressive neoliberal sectors secretly supported and financed by the Washington regime.
Journalist, Writer and Filmmaker John Pilger granted this exclusive interview where he talks about the US war on democracy in Latin America. “Modern era imperialism is a war on democracy. Genuine democracy is a threat to unfettered power and cannot be tolerated”, he says.
Pilger produced War on Democracy set in Latin America and the US in 2006, when he traveled across Venezuela with the then-President Hugo Chávez. He talks about his motivations to produce that documentary. The film shows how serial US intervention, overt and covert, has toppled a series of legitimate governments in the Latin American region since the 1950s.
READ INTERVIEW HERE.....
Journalist, Writer and Filmmaker John Pilger granted this exclusive interview where he talks about the US war on democracy in Latin America. “Modern era imperialism is a war on democracy. Genuine democracy is a threat to unfettered power and cannot be tolerated”, he says.
Pilger produced War on Democracy set in Latin America and the US in 2006, when he traveled across Venezuela with the then-President Hugo Chávez. He talks about his motivations to produce that documentary. The film shows how serial US intervention, overt and covert, has toppled a series of legitimate governments in the Latin American region since the 1950s.
READ INTERVIEW HERE.....
Siete millones más de pobres en America Latina durante 2015
Semana - Marzo 22, 2016
En 2015, "la tasa regional de pobreza habría aumentado a 29,2 % de los habitantes de la región (175 millones de personas) y la tasa de indigencia a 12,4 % (75 millones de personas)", según informó la Comisión Económica para América y el Caribe (Cepal), en Santiago.
La cifra se compara desfavorablemente con los resultados de 2014, cuando en la región se reportaron 168 millones de personas pobres, un incremento de dos millones en relación al año previo, de acuerdo a las nuevas cifras entregadas por el organismo técnico de Naciones Unidas con sede en Santiago.
"El aumento de la cantidad de personas pobres constatado en 2014 se produjo básicamente entre los pobres no indigentes, y fue consecuencia de dispares resultados nacionales, elevándose en algunos países y disminuyendo en un número importante de ellos", se explicó en el documento.
La contracción de un 0,4% proyectada para la economía regional durante 2015, arrastrada por una caída en el valor de las materias primas y el descenso de la economía brasileña, habría impactado sobre las cifras de pobreza de América Latina durante 2015.
Para reducir el número de pobres "América Latina debe generar más empleo de calidad, con derechos y protección social, cautelar el salario mínimo y proteger el gasto social, que muestra una merma en su ritmo de crecimiento", exhortó Alicia Bárcena, secretaria ejecutiva de Cepal.
Hasta 2012, tras una década de crecimiento económico, la región había logrado reducir en 15,7 puntos porcentuales sus niveles de pobreza.
Persiste desigualdad
CONTINUE LEYENDO AQUI ....
La cifra se compara desfavorablemente con los resultados de 2014, cuando en la región se reportaron 168 millones de personas pobres, un incremento de dos millones en relación al año previo, de acuerdo a las nuevas cifras entregadas por el organismo técnico de Naciones Unidas con sede en Santiago.
"El aumento de la cantidad de personas pobres constatado en 2014 se produjo básicamente entre los pobres no indigentes, y fue consecuencia de dispares resultados nacionales, elevándose en algunos países y disminuyendo en un número importante de ellos", se explicó en el documento.
La contracción de un 0,4% proyectada para la economía regional durante 2015, arrastrada por una caída en el valor de las materias primas y el descenso de la economía brasileña, habría impactado sobre las cifras de pobreza de América Latina durante 2015.
Para reducir el número de pobres "América Latina debe generar más empleo de calidad, con derechos y protección social, cautelar el salario mínimo y proteger el gasto social, que muestra una merma en su ritmo de crecimiento", exhortó Alicia Bárcena, secretaria ejecutiva de Cepal.
Hasta 2012, tras una década de crecimiento económico, la región había logrado reducir en 15,7 puntos porcentuales sus niveles de pobreza.
Persiste desigualdad
CONTINUE LEYENDO AQUI ....
Nuevo mapa de los golpes de Estado en América Latina
Marcos Roitman Rosenmann, Resumen Latinoamericano
21 marzo 2016
La agenda de la derecha latinoamericana no ha variado. Su máxima es no dejar gobernar a gobierno democrático alguno. La justificación ideológica para derrocarlos está a la orden del día. Si por alguna razón las clases dominantes dejaron en barbecho la técnica del golpe de Estado, se debió al reinado absolutista del neoliberalismo ejercido entre los años 70 y los 90 del siglo pasado.
Hoy, la derecha política, económica, social, las grandes empresas trasnacionales, lo desempolvan, apuntando a nuevos enemigos: el populismo, la corrupción, y a una amenaza exterior identificada con el narcotráfico, el terrorismo internacional y los movimientos antisistema.
El momento de euforia, sin intervenciones militares, cubre un breve periodo que va desde 1990 hasta 2002, momento del fallido golpe contra el gobierno del presidente constitucional y democrático de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. A partir de ese instante, el putsch político se redefine. Los llamados golpes de guante blanco se compatibilizan con las armas de la guerra sicológica, comunicacional y las acciones desestabilizadoras en el orden económico, político e internacional.
El golpe cívico-militar contra el presidente de Honduras, Manuel Zelaya (2009), se convierte en un punto de inflexión. En 2012, el derrocamiento del presidente Fernando Lugo, en Paraguay, da la bienvenida a los golpes consensuados entre los poderes del Estado. Hoy la derecha brasileña pretende dar la puntilla, forzando la dimisión de la presidenta Dilma Rousseff, cuya debilidad extrema, producto de sus propios errores, no se puede desconocer.
La trama es posible gracias a una izquierda débil, cuya desarticulación se remonta a los gobiernos de Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Ignacio Lula da Silva. Defender este gobierno es un acto imposible, salvo apelando, como de costumbre, a una visión fatalista, en la cual, se arguye que los que vienen lo harán peor. Lo cual no impide ver que se trata de un golpe de Estado y un acto desestabilizador que rompe cualquier consenso democrático representativo.
CONTINUE LEYENDO AQUI ...
Hoy, la derecha política, económica, social, las grandes empresas trasnacionales, lo desempolvan, apuntando a nuevos enemigos: el populismo, la corrupción, y a una amenaza exterior identificada con el narcotráfico, el terrorismo internacional y los movimientos antisistema.
El momento de euforia, sin intervenciones militares, cubre un breve periodo que va desde 1990 hasta 2002, momento del fallido golpe contra el gobierno del presidente constitucional y democrático de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. A partir de ese instante, el putsch político se redefine. Los llamados golpes de guante blanco se compatibilizan con las armas de la guerra sicológica, comunicacional y las acciones desestabilizadoras en el orden económico, político e internacional.
El golpe cívico-militar contra el presidente de Honduras, Manuel Zelaya (2009), se convierte en un punto de inflexión. En 2012, el derrocamiento del presidente Fernando Lugo, en Paraguay, da la bienvenida a los golpes consensuados entre los poderes del Estado. Hoy la derecha brasileña pretende dar la puntilla, forzando la dimisión de la presidenta Dilma Rousseff, cuya debilidad extrema, producto de sus propios errores, no se puede desconocer.
La trama es posible gracias a una izquierda débil, cuya desarticulación se remonta a los gobiernos de Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Ignacio Lula da Silva. Defender este gobierno es un acto imposible, salvo apelando, como de costumbre, a una visión fatalista, en la cual, se arguye que los que vienen lo harán peor. Lo cual no impide ver que se trata de un golpe de Estado y un acto desestabilizador que rompe cualquier consenso democrático representativo.
CONTINUE LEYENDO AQUI ...
Responding to Clinton Barb, Sanders Blasts
US Imperialism in Latin America
Common Dreams - by Deirdre Fulton
March 10, 2016
'The key issue here was whether the United States should go around overthrowing small Latin American countries,' says Bernie Sanders.
Hillary Clinton's interventionist record in Latin America is being called into question after Wednesday night's Democratic presidential debate saw her and rival Bernie Sanders sparring over the U.S.'s role in the region.
"Is Hillary Clinton a credible voice for condemning support for despots and human rights abusers?"
—Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
When asked about his past support for Latin American leaders Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Fidel Castro in Cuba, and to explain "the difference between the socialism that you profess and the socialism in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela," Sanders declared:
What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government -- democratically elected government of Guatemala.
Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the -- to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile.
I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments.
READ MORE HERE
Hillary Clinton's interventionist record in Latin America is being called into question after Wednesday night's Democratic presidential debate saw her and rival Bernie Sanders sparring over the U.S.'s role in the region.
"Is Hillary Clinton a credible voice for condemning support for despots and human rights abusers?"
—Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
When asked about his past support for Latin American leaders Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Fidel Castro in Cuba, and to explain "the difference between the socialism that you profess and the socialism in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela," Sanders declared:
What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government -- democratically elected government of Guatemala.
Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the -- to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile.
I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments.
READ MORE HERE
“Obama viene a la región a impulsar el Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica”
Por Manuel Barrientos y Walter Isaía / Resumen Latinoamericano/ APU
11 de Marzo 2016
Leandro Morgenfeld, doctor en Historia de la UBA e investigador del CONICET, sostiene que hay que observar con preocupación la agenda que planteará el presidente norteamericano en su visita a la Argentina.
“Muy pocas veces llegó un presidente norteamericano en ejercicio de su mandato a la Argentina. No es un dato menor, porque las cinco visitas previas que se produjeron, marcaron cambios en la relación con nuestro país. Entonces, no es un viaje más, ni una cuestión diplomática o meramente simbólica”, advierte Leandro Morgenfeld, historiador y autor de los libros “Vecinos en conflicto. Argentina y Estados Unidos en las Conferencias Panamericanas” y “Relaciones peligrosas: Argentina y Estados Unidos”. Franklin D. Roosevelt, en 1936, fue el primer mandatario que realizó una visita oficial. Luego llegaron Dwight Eisenhower (1960), George H. Bush (1990) y Bill Clinton (1997). George W. Bush fue el último, pero no se trató de una reunión bilateral, porque vino en el marco de la Cumbre de las Américas que se realizó en Mar del Plata en 2005.
En la entrevista, Morgenfeld señala que Barack Obama viene a la región a impulsar el Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica, en un contexto ahora favorable con la asunción de Mauricio Macri. Y pide que se observe con atención los acuerdos que se puedan firmar en materia de seguridad, bajo el ala de la lucha contra el narcotráfico y el terrorismo.
LEA AQUI LA ENTREVISTA
“Muy pocas veces llegó un presidente norteamericano en ejercicio de su mandato a la Argentina. No es un dato menor, porque las cinco visitas previas que se produjeron, marcaron cambios en la relación con nuestro país. Entonces, no es un viaje más, ni una cuestión diplomática o meramente simbólica”, advierte Leandro Morgenfeld, historiador y autor de los libros “Vecinos en conflicto. Argentina y Estados Unidos en las Conferencias Panamericanas” y “Relaciones peligrosas: Argentina y Estados Unidos”. Franklin D. Roosevelt, en 1936, fue el primer mandatario que realizó una visita oficial. Luego llegaron Dwight Eisenhower (1960), George H. Bush (1990) y Bill Clinton (1997). George W. Bush fue el último, pero no se trató de una reunión bilateral, porque vino en el marco de la Cumbre de las Américas que se realizó en Mar del Plata en 2005.
En la entrevista, Morgenfeld señala que Barack Obama viene a la región a impulsar el Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica, en un contexto ahora favorable con la asunción de Mauricio Macri. Y pide que se observe con atención los acuerdos que se puedan firmar en materia de seguridad, bajo el ala de la lucha contra el narcotráfico y el terrorismo.
LEA AQUI LA ENTREVISTA
¿Estancamiento, retroceso, involución?
Hipótesis sobre la génesis de ciertos acontecimientos recientes en América Latina
Por Atilio A. Boron / Resumen Latinoamericano
03 de Marzo 2016
Una coyuntura como esta, descrita a grandes rasgos dado que es por todos conocida, exige llevar a cabo un análisis en profundidad de las causas que la explican.
La región vive una coyuntura muy especial: al anunciado cambio de época proclamado con total acierto por el presidente Rafael Correa hace ya unos cuantos años lo acechan amenazas de una insólita gravedad. Proliferan las voces que pregonan -con indisimulada alegría algunos en la izquierda, con alivio otros en la derecha- el “fin de ciclo progresista”, más una expresión de deseos que un argumento sólidamente fundado.
Pero más allá de esta disyuntiva, es indudable que el gran impulso ascendente de las luchas sociales y las fuerzas progresistas que desde finales del siglo pasado conmovieron a la región se ha ralentizado. La derrota del ALCA en Noviembre del 2005 aparece ahora, en perspectiva histórica, como el cenit de un proceso que luego iría debilitándose paulatinamente.
Sin embargo, la inercia histórica era tan fuerte que ese auge de masas hizo posible las victorias de Evo Morales en Bolivia a finales del 2005 y de Rafael Correa en Ecuador también a fines del 2006. No sólo eso: también hubo un impulso suficientemente vigoroso como para desbaratar la intentona de golpe y secesión ensayada en Bolivia en el 2008 y el golpe de estado en Ecuador en Septiembre del 2010. Pero,
Continue leyendo aqui ...
La región vive una coyuntura muy especial: al anunciado cambio de época proclamado con total acierto por el presidente Rafael Correa hace ya unos cuantos años lo acechan amenazas de una insólita gravedad. Proliferan las voces que pregonan -con indisimulada alegría algunos en la izquierda, con alivio otros en la derecha- el “fin de ciclo progresista”, más una expresión de deseos que un argumento sólidamente fundado.
Pero más allá de esta disyuntiva, es indudable que el gran impulso ascendente de las luchas sociales y las fuerzas progresistas que desde finales del siglo pasado conmovieron a la región se ha ralentizado. La derrota del ALCA en Noviembre del 2005 aparece ahora, en perspectiva histórica, como el cenit de un proceso que luego iría debilitándose paulatinamente.
Sin embargo, la inercia histórica era tan fuerte que ese auge de masas hizo posible las victorias de Evo Morales en Bolivia a finales del 2005 y de Rafael Correa en Ecuador también a fines del 2006. No sólo eso: también hubo un impulso suficientemente vigoroso como para desbaratar la intentona de golpe y secesión ensayada en Bolivia en el 2008 y el golpe de estado en Ecuador en Septiembre del 2010. Pero,
Continue leyendo aqui ...
Las crisis de la izquierda latinoamericana by Emir Sader
America Latina en Movimiento- ALAINET
Feb. 22, 2016
Se puede decir que hay dos izquierdas en América Latina y que ambas padecen de crisis, cada una a su manera. Una es la que llegó a los gobiernos, empezó procesos de democratización de las sociedades y de salida del modelo neoliberal y que hoy se enfrenta a dificultades –de distinto orden, desde afuera y desde adentro– para dar continuidad a esos procesos. La otra es la que, aun viviendo en países con continuados gobiernos neoliberales, no logra siquiera constituir fuerzas capaces de ganar elecciones, llegar al gobierno y empezar a superar el neoliberalismo.
La izquierda posneoliberal ha tenido éxitos extraordinarios, aún más teniendo en cuenta que los avances en la lucha contra la pobreza y la desigualdad se han dado en los marcos de una economía internacional que, al contrario, aumenta la pobreza y la desigualdad. En el continente más desigual del mundo, cercados por un proceso de recesión profunda y prolongada del capitalismo internacional, los gobiernos de Venezuela, Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia y Ecuador han disminuido la desigualdad y la pobreza, han consolidado procesos políticos democráticos, han construido procesos de integración regional independientes de Estados Unidos y han acentuado el intercambio Sur-Sur.
Continue leyendo aqui ...
La izquierda posneoliberal ha tenido éxitos extraordinarios, aún más teniendo en cuenta que los avances en la lucha contra la pobreza y la desigualdad se han dado en los marcos de una economía internacional que, al contrario, aumenta la pobreza y la desigualdad. En el continente más desigual del mundo, cercados por un proceso de recesión profunda y prolongada del capitalismo internacional, los gobiernos de Venezuela, Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia y Ecuador han disminuido la desigualdad y la pobreza, han consolidado procesos políticos democráticos, han construido procesos de integración regional independientes de Estados Unidos y han acentuado el intercambio Sur-Sur.
Continue leyendo aqui ...
Rafael Correa: La CELAC debe reemplazar
a una OEA anacrónica
TeleSUR
Jan. 27, 2016
El presidente de Ecuador, Rafael Correa, destacó este miércoles que la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC) debe reemplazar a mediano plazo a la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), un organismo “que jamás funcionó adecuadamente, pero que es más anacrónico que nunca”.
“Necesitamos un organismo latinoamericano y caribeño capaz de defender los intereses soberanos de sus miembros; la OEA nos alejó de ese propósito reiteradamente”, denunció el mandatario ecuatoriano, durante la sesión inaugural de la IV Cumbre de la CELAC en Quito, Ecuador.
Se trata de desarrollar y potenciar el papel como bloque de la región, según explicó Correa, quien además precisó que éste sería el más importante punto, de los cinco ejes de trabajo que se plantea América Latina y el Caribe para los próximos años, en aras de combatir la pobreza.
Para el jefe de Estado de Ecuador, quien ostenta la presidencia pro témpora de la CELAC, y que entregará este año a República Dominicana, este organismo debe ser el indicado para discutir los asuntos de la parte sur del continente, mientras que la OEA debería convertirse en el ente de los problemas del norte, pues “las Américas al norte y al sur del Río Bravo son diferentes”.
Correa cuestionó que la sede del organismo, que actualmente es utilizado para atender los asuntos del continente, esté ubicada en Washington, capital Estados Unidos, país del “criminal bloqueo contra Cuba”.
Sentenció que para resolver esta situación es necesario “un nuevo sistema interamericano”, en el que la CELAC y la OEA procesen las coincidencias y conflictos entre el norte y el sur del continente.El mandatario criticó que estas instancias sean utilizadas por países hegemónicos para controlar al resto de las naciones. “Pagan para controlar a los demás, para controlar a los otros, eso solo tiene un nombre: neocolonialismo; y es inaceptable en nuestra América del siglo XXI”. En este sentido, advirtió que los países de la región están controlados por Organizaciones No Gubernamentales que se involucran en asuntos políticos, “pero sin responsabilidad política, lo cual es mortal para la democracia”. "Todo está listo para el nuevo sistema”, aseveró Correa.
Por otro lado, el mandatario también explicó los otros ejes de trabajo que prioriza la región para los próximos años.
IV Cumbre de la CELAC (Ecuador) - SEñAL EN VIVO!
“Necesitamos un organismo latinoamericano y caribeño capaz de defender los intereses soberanos de sus miembros; la OEA nos alejó de ese propósito reiteradamente”, denunció el mandatario ecuatoriano, durante la sesión inaugural de la IV Cumbre de la CELAC en Quito, Ecuador.
Se trata de desarrollar y potenciar el papel como bloque de la región, según explicó Correa, quien además precisó que éste sería el más importante punto, de los cinco ejes de trabajo que se plantea América Latina y el Caribe para los próximos años, en aras de combatir la pobreza.
Para el jefe de Estado de Ecuador, quien ostenta la presidencia pro témpora de la CELAC, y que entregará este año a República Dominicana, este organismo debe ser el indicado para discutir los asuntos de la parte sur del continente, mientras que la OEA debería convertirse en el ente de los problemas del norte, pues “las Américas al norte y al sur del Río Bravo son diferentes”.
Correa cuestionó que la sede del organismo, que actualmente es utilizado para atender los asuntos del continente, esté ubicada en Washington, capital Estados Unidos, país del “criminal bloqueo contra Cuba”.
Sentenció que para resolver esta situación es necesario “un nuevo sistema interamericano”, en el que la CELAC y la OEA procesen las coincidencias y conflictos entre el norte y el sur del continente.El mandatario criticó que estas instancias sean utilizadas por países hegemónicos para controlar al resto de las naciones. “Pagan para controlar a los demás, para controlar a los otros, eso solo tiene un nombre: neocolonialismo; y es inaceptable en nuestra América del siglo XXI”. En este sentido, advirtió que los países de la región están controlados por Organizaciones No Gubernamentales que se involucran en asuntos políticos, “pero sin responsabilidad política, lo cual es mortal para la democracia”. "Todo está listo para el nuevo sistema”, aseveró Correa.
Por otro lado, el mandatario también explicó los otros ejes de trabajo que prioriza la región para los próximos años.
IV Cumbre de la CELAC (Ecuador) - SEñAL EN VIVO!
What Happens When Latino Immigrants Don’t Speak
English -- or Spanish?
Care2 - Nov. 19, 2015
Backlash against Latin American immigrants who primarily speak Spanish is nothing new – if you live in an area with a large Latino population, you need only leave the house to hear immigrants being ordered to “speak English.” Even speaking Spanish in public can open you up to harassment from bystanders for daring to have a conversation with your family in your native language, as this recent viral video demonstrates.
Statistics showing that 68 percent of Latinos speak English proficiently aside, the refusal to accommodate recent immigrants who are still learning English can result in very real consequences for families, diminishing employment opportunities and preventing people from accessing housing, up-to-date legal resources and medical assistance.
All of these factors are multiplied when you’re a Latino immigrant who speaks one of the dozens of indigenous languages still used throughout Central America. A recent NPR story estimates that there are over six million people who still speak traditional Mayan languages in Latin America today — and as more and more of them immigrate to the U.S., it is often nearly impossible to find translators who can help them navigate the legal system.
While the Mayan empire collapsed sometime around the 9th century for reasons that are still unclear (and hotly debated), the descendants of the Mayan civilization still survive, scattered throughout Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras and El Salvador.
In the past, Spanish has been the primary language spoken by Latino immigrants, but as more and more Central Americans make the journey to the U.S., the demographics are shifting. Mayan language speakers make up only a small part of the population of these countries, but as members of indigenous cultures, they’re often among the poorest members.
These immigrants may speak some Spanish in their day to day lives, but it’s not their native language. It may often be enough to get by during normal interactions, but when these Maya speakers get involved in legal trouble, they don’t always know enough Spanish to navigate the system.
In a recent Florida case, migrant laborers charged with illegally harvesting palmetto berries didn’t realize they were doing anything wrong — because the notices warning them that permits for the practice were being suspended were distributed only in Spanish and English. Many of these workers drifted through the legal system, unaware of the charges against them or their right to request an interpreter, simply answering “yes” to all of the judges’ questions until it became apparent they didn’t understand the Spanish translations they were given. Some went as far as accepting plea deals before anyone thought to ask what language they spoke.
As the numbers of immigrants who speak these traditional languages soar, interpreters are having trouble keeping up with the demand. Only a handful of universities in the U.S. offer instruction in Mayan languages, and those that do usually only offer one or two languages out of nearly 30 that have been officially identified.
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to convince native speakers to become interpreters in English or Spanish. Many of these have faced discrimination and bullying in their native countries and may hesitate to identify themselves. NPR spoke to one young boy in Texas who refused to speak his native language at all, even at home with his mother, after suffering a head injury at the hands of bullies in Guatemala City. Sadly, this is not an uncommon experience, and it may be part of the reason many Mayan languages are slowly dying out.
Statistics showing that 68 percent of Latinos speak English proficiently aside, the refusal to accommodate recent immigrants who are still learning English can result in very real consequences for families, diminishing employment opportunities and preventing people from accessing housing, up-to-date legal resources and medical assistance.
All of these factors are multiplied when you’re a Latino immigrant who speaks one of the dozens of indigenous languages still used throughout Central America. A recent NPR story estimates that there are over six million people who still speak traditional Mayan languages in Latin America today — and as more and more of them immigrate to the U.S., it is often nearly impossible to find translators who can help them navigate the legal system.
While the Mayan empire collapsed sometime around the 9th century for reasons that are still unclear (and hotly debated), the descendants of the Mayan civilization still survive, scattered throughout Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras and El Salvador.
In the past, Spanish has been the primary language spoken by Latino immigrants, but as more and more Central Americans make the journey to the U.S., the demographics are shifting. Mayan language speakers make up only a small part of the population of these countries, but as members of indigenous cultures, they’re often among the poorest members.
These immigrants may speak some Spanish in their day to day lives, but it’s not their native language. It may often be enough to get by during normal interactions, but when these Maya speakers get involved in legal trouble, they don’t always know enough Spanish to navigate the system.
In a recent Florida case, migrant laborers charged with illegally harvesting palmetto berries didn’t realize they were doing anything wrong — because the notices warning them that permits for the practice were being suspended were distributed only in Spanish and English. Many of these workers drifted through the legal system, unaware of the charges against them or their right to request an interpreter, simply answering “yes” to all of the judges’ questions until it became apparent they didn’t understand the Spanish translations they were given. Some went as far as accepting plea deals before anyone thought to ask what language they spoke.
As the numbers of immigrants who speak these traditional languages soar, interpreters are having trouble keeping up with the demand. Only a handful of universities in the U.S. offer instruction in Mayan languages, and those that do usually only offer one or two languages out of nearly 30 that have been officially identified.
Unfortunately, it can be difficult to convince native speakers to become interpreters in English or Spanish. Many of these have faced discrimination and bullying in their native countries and may hesitate to identify themselves. NPR spoke to one young boy in Texas who refused to speak his native language at all, even at home with his mother, after suffering a head injury at the hands of bullies in Guatemala City. Sadly, this is not an uncommon experience, and it may be part of the reason many Mayan languages are slowly dying out.
Término ‘Hispano’, con trasfondo racista en EU: Expert
Contrainjerencia - Nov. 8, 2015
"Es algo que me parece un serio problema que va a provocar quizás consecuencias graves de racismo en este país; el hecho de habernos definido a todos desde afuera como hispanos”, indicó René Prieto profesor de humanidades y literatura de los siglos XIX y XX en la Universidad de Texas en Dallas.
Prieto ofreció una conferencia en el consulado de México en Dallas, denominada Nuestra lengua entre dos culturas, en el marco de la conmemoración del XXXII Aniversario del Día de la Lengua Española.
Los comentarios del académico sobre el uso del término hispano para definir a la población latinoamericana que reside en Estados Unidos, provocaron un amplio y entusiasta debate entre el público asistente que abarrotó la sala de exhibiciones del consulado.
Continue leyendo aqui ...
Prieto ofreció una conferencia en el consulado de México en Dallas, denominada Nuestra lengua entre dos culturas, en el marco de la conmemoración del XXXII Aniversario del Día de la Lengua Española.
Los comentarios del académico sobre el uso del término hispano para definir a la población latinoamericana que reside en Estados Unidos, provocaron un amplio y entusiasta debate entre el público asistente que abarrotó la sala de exhibiciones del consulado.
Continue leyendo aqui ...
Ernesto Che Guevara: vigencia de sus principios
Por Víctor Pérez Galdós / Resumen Latinoamericano/
7 de Octubre 2015
José Martí aseguró que los héroes son patrimonio de todas las edades y también propiedad humana, comensales de toda mesa y de toda casa familiars.
Tales calificativos, aunque fueron expuestos por Martí en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX pueden servir para calificar a diversos hombres y mujeres que en la historia de Cuba han sobresalido por haberse convertido en símbolos, en fuentes de motivación y enseñanza para nuestro pueblo, y para múltiples personas en diferentes partes del mundo.
Tal es el caso de Ernesto Guevara de la Serna quién tuvo una vida breve pero muy fecunda.
Nacido en la ciudad de Rosario, Argentina, el 14 de junio de 1928, se sintió hijo no sólo de ese país, sino de América Latina en general y apreció como suya la causa de los pueblos en general, no sólo del lugar donde llegara a la vida o desenvolviera una parte de su existencia como tal.
Read More here ...
Tales calificativos, aunque fueron expuestos por Martí en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX pueden servir para calificar a diversos hombres y mujeres que en la historia de Cuba han sobresalido por haberse convertido en símbolos, en fuentes de motivación y enseñanza para nuestro pueblo, y para múltiples personas en diferentes partes del mundo.
Tal es el caso de Ernesto Guevara de la Serna quién tuvo una vida breve pero muy fecunda.
Nacido en la ciudad de Rosario, Argentina, el 14 de junio de 1928, se sintió hijo no sólo de ese país, sino de América Latina en general y apreció como suya la causa de los pueblos en general, no sólo del lugar donde llegara a la vida o desenvolviera una parte de su existencia como tal.
Read More here ...
What's the difference between Hispanic, Latino, and Spanish?
Julio 14, 2015
Hispanic, Latino and Spanish are often used interchangeably in describing race.
But what's the right terminology? Kat Lazo lays down some wisdom.
Do you agree with her perspective?
But what's the right terminology? Kat Lazo lays down some wisdom.
Do you agree with her perspective?
La exclusión en el capitalismo contemporáneo
Por: Juan Grabois, ALAI AMLATINA, 30/06/2015
1.- La exclusión como experiencia histórica
Mi generación nació con la “transición democrática” latinoamericana. Democracias mutiladas por el Plan Cóndor y el exterminio de miles de campesinos, obreros, estudiantes, militantes populares que enfrentaron la bestia capitalista, anhelando la justicia social y la emancipación de sus pueblos. Democracias con olor a derrota y privatización, entrega y saqueo, transa y corrupción. Conocimos el fariseísmo político en su grado superlativo y a los que, parafraseando al Che, ya no llevaban a los pobres ni a la patria en el corazón para luchar por ellos sino en la lengua para vivir de ellos.
Mi generación creció sumergida hasta el cuello en la obscena frivolidad de los noventa, desfachatada y exhibicionista, que no rindió a la virtud siquiera el vano tributo del disimulo. El fin de la historia se imponía con la soberbia estridente del Imperio triunfante, ahogando el grito de los muchos que caían en el desempleo y la desesperanza o, más bien, pisoteándolos. El individualismo hedonista se instalaba como cultura hegemónica y hasta la rebeldía se encuadraba dócilmente en las grotescas reglas del marketing. El mercado inundaba a los pueblos con espejitos de colores y, para los más exigentes, ofrecía experiencias artísticas, culturales, ideológicas y religiosas a la carta.
Lea articulo completo aqui!
Mi generación nació con la “transición democrática” latinoamericana. Democracias mutiladas por el Plan Cóndor y el exterminio de miles de campesinos, obreros, estudiantes, militantes populares que enfrentaron la bestia capitalista, anhelando la justicia social y la emancipación de sus pueblos. Democracias con olor a derrota y privatización, entrega y saqueo, transa y corrupción. Conocimos el fariseísmo político en su grado superlativo y a los que, parafraseando al Che, ya no llevaban a los pobres ni a la patria en el corazón para luchar por ellos sino en la lengua para vivir de ellos.
Mi generación creció sumergida hasta el cuello en la obscena frivolidad de los noventa, desfachatada y exhibicionista, que no rindió a la virtud siquiera el vano tributo del disimulo. El fin de la historia se imponía con la soberbia estridente del Imperio triunfante, ahogando el grito de los muchos que caían en el desempleo y la desesperanza o, más bien, pisoteándolos. El individualismo hedonista se instalaba como cultura hegemónica y hasta la rebeldía se encuadraba dócilmente en las grotescas reglas del marketing. El mercado inundaba a los pueblos con espejitos de colores y, para los más exigentes, ofrecía experiencias artísticas, culturales, ideológicas y religiosas a la carta.
Lea articulo completo aqui!
¡La patria es la América!
Una lectura actual de la proclama del Libertador
Por Sergio Rodriguez Gelfenstein
Barometro Internacional
Mayo 23, 2015
El 12 de noviembre de 1814, en una proclama a los soldados de la División del general Rafael Urdaneta en Pamplona, el Libertador pronunció una frase que quedaría para la posteridad: “Para nosotros la patria es la América” la cual, retomando el credo de Francisco de Miranda, adelantaba el eje central de las ideas que menos de un año después esbozaría en la Carta de Jamaica, la cual este año conmemora su bicentenario. Vale la pena, -en el contexto actual- intentar una proyección de esta máxima del ideario bolivariano cuando entramos raudos en el siglo XXI y la región se adentra en nuevas vicisitudes y se aproxima a inéditos retos en tiempos de globalización en el marco de la incertidumbre de un mundo que se torna agresivo y confuso.
Read more here ...
Read more here ...
Organizaciones de América Latina en solidaridad con el movimiento Basta de Pasividad
Santiago de Chile, 27 de enero, 2013 http://www.commonfrontiers.ca
Organizaciones participantes en la Cumbre de los Pueblos de América Latina, el Caribe y Europaexpresamos nuestra solidaridad con el movimiento Idle No More/Basta de Pasividad de Canadá quienes forman parte de un movimiento indígena más amplio que viene resistiendo el colonialismo desde hace siglos.
En los últimos meses, Indígenas a lo largo Canadá se han levantado para reclamar su soberanía y para proteger a la Madre Tierra y el agua de la explotación de las corporaciones. En muchos casos esto se ve facilitado por los tratados de libre comercio y tratados bilaterales de inversión que buscan protegerlos derechos de los inversionistas a expensas de los derechos de las comunidades y el medio ambiente.
Esta expresión de indignación se ve en todo el continente, en donde diversos pueblos originarios están protagonizando la lucha para proteger su soberanía y a la madre tierra, ejemplarmente el Pueblo Mapuche en Chile.
Urgimos a los gobiernos de Canada, América Latina, el Caribe y Europa a que respeten los derechos de las comunidades Indígenas consagrados en la Declaración de los Pueblos Indígenas de las Naciones Unidas.
Queremos brindar un abrazo fraternal a todos y todas que luchan por un nuevo amanecer y apoyamos el Día de Acción Mundial Basta de Pasividad.
Red Colombiana Frente la Gran Minería Transnacional (RECALME) – Colombia
Red Latinoamericana sobre Deuda, Desarrollo y Derechos (LATINDADD)
La Mesa Nacional frente a la Minería Metálica- El Salvador
Red Mexicana de Acción frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC) – México
Asamblea de los pueblos de Huehuetenango por la Defensa del territorio (ADH-CPO) - Huehuetenango - Guatemala
Otros Mundos- Chiapas, México
Frente amplia opositor newgold-Minera San Xavier ‘’FAO’’ – México
Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA) – México
Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el modelo extractivo Minera (M4) – Central América
Observatorio por el Cierre de la Escuela de las Américas - Chile
Comisión Ética Contra la Tortura - Chile
Comité Oscar Romero - Chile
Solidaridad Suecia América Latina (SAL)- Ecuador
Latin American Organizations in solidarity with Idle No More
Santiago Chile January 27, 2013
The following organizations that partook in the Peoples’ Summit of Latin American, Caribbean States and Europe send our solidarity to the Idle No More movement in Canada that forms part of a larger movement that has been resisting colonialism for centuries.
In the past few months Indigenous people across Canada have risen up to reclaim their sovereignty and protect Mother Earth and the water from corporate exploitation. In many cases this is facilitated via free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties that seek to protect investor rights at the expense of communities and the environment. This expression of indignation can been see across all Latin America where diverse original peoples are leading the struggle to protect the earth and their sovereignty, like the Mapuchi People.
We ask the governments of Canada, Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe to respect the right of indigenous communities as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We send our fraternal greetings to all those that struggle for a new dawn and support the Idle No More World Day of Action - January 28, 2013
Red Colombiana Frente la Gran Minería Transnacional (RECALME) – Colombia
Red Latinoamericana sobre Deuda, Desarrollo y Derechos (LATINDADD)
La Mesa Nacional frente a la Minería Metálica- El Salvador
Red Mexicana de Acción frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC) – México
Asamblea de los pueblos de Huehuetenango por la Defensa del territorio (ADH-CPO) - Huehuetenango - Guatemala
Otros Mundos- Chiapas, México
Frente amplia opositor newgold-Minera San Xavier ‘’FAO’’ – México
Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA) – México
Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el modelo extractivo Minera (M4) – Central América
Observatorio por el Cierre de la Escuela de las Américas - Chile
Comisión Ética Contra la Tortura - Chile
Comité Oscar Romero - Chile
Solidaridad Suecia América Latina (SAL)- Ecuador
Organizaciones de América Latina en solidaridad con el movimiento Basta de Pasividad
Santiago de Chile, 27 de enero, 2013 http://www.commonfrontiers.ca
Organizaciones participantes en la Cumbre de los Pueblos de América Latina, el Caribe y Europaexpresamos nuestra solidaridad con el movimiento Idle No More/Basta de Pasividad de Canadá quienes forman parte de un movimiento indígena más amplio que viene resistiendo el colonialismo desde hace siglos.
En los últimos meses, Indígenas a lo largo Canadá se han levantado para reclamar su soberanía y para proteger a la Madre Tierra y el agua de la explotación de las corporaciones. En muchos casos esto se ve facilitado por los tratados de libre comercio y tratados bilaterales de inversión que buscan protegerlos derechos de los inversionistas a expensas de los derechos de las comunidades y el medio ambiente.
Esta expresión de indignación se ve en todo el continente, en donde diversos pueblos originarios están protagonizando la lucha para proteger su soberanía y a la madre tierra, ejemplarmente el Pueblo Mapuche en Chile.
Urgimos a los gobiernos de Canada, América Latina, el Caribe y Europa a que respeten los derechos de las comunidades Indígenas consagrados en la Declaración de los Pueblos Indígenas de las Naciones Unidas.
Queremos brindar un abrazo fraternal a todos y todas que luchan por un nuevo amanecer y apoyamos el Día de Acción Mundial Basta de Pasividad.
Red Colombiana Frente la Gran Minería Transnacional (RECALME) – Colombia
Red Latinoamericana sobre Deuda, Desarrollo y Derechos (LATINDADD)
La Mesa Nacional frente a la Minería Metálica- El Salvador
Red Mexicana de Acción frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC) – México
Asamblea de los pueblos de Huehuetenango por la Defensa del territorio (ADH-CPO) - Huehuetenango - Guatemala
Otros Mundos- Chiapas, México
Frente amplia opositor newgold-Minera San Xavier ‘’FAO’’ – México
Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA) – México
Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el modelo extractivo Minera (M4) – Central América
Observatorio por el Cierre de la Escuela de las Américas - Chile
Comisión Ética Contra la Tortura - Chile
Comité Oscar Romero - Chile
Solidaridad Suecia América Latina (SAL)- Ecuador
Latin American Organizations in solidarity with Idle No More
Santiago Chile January 27, 2013
The following organizations that partook in the Peoples’ Summit of Latin American, Caribbean States and Europe send our solidarity to the Idle No More movement in Canada that forms part of a larger movement that has been resisting colonialism for centuries.
In the past few months Indigenous people across Canada have risen up to reclaim their sovereignty and protect Mother Earth and the water from corporate exploitation. In many cases this is facilitated via free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties that seek to protect investor rights at the expense of communities and the environment. This expression of indignation can been see across all Latin America where diverse original peoples are leading the struggle to protect the earth and their sovereignty, like the Mapuchi People.
We ask the governments of Canada, Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe to respect the right of indigenous communities as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We send our fraternal greetings to all those that struggle for a new dawn and support the Idle No More World Day of Action - January 28, 2013
Red Colombiana Frente la Gran Minería Transnacional (RECALME) – Colombia
Red Latinoamericana sobre Deuda, Desarrollo y Derechos (LATINDADD)
La Mesa Nacional frente a la Minería Metálica- El Salvador
Red Mexicana de Acción frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC) – México
Asamblea de los pueblos de Huehuetenango por la Defensa del territorio (ADH-CPO) - Huehuetenango - Guatemala
Otros Mundos- Chiapas, México
Frente amplia opositor newgold-Minera San Xavier ‘’FAO’’ – México
Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (REMA) – México
Movimiento Mesoamericano contra el modelo extractivo Minera (M4) – Central América
Observatorio por el Cierre de la Escuela de las Américas - Chile
Comisión Ética Contra la Tortura - Chile
Comité Oscar Romero - Chile
Solidaridad Suecia América Latina (SAL)- Ecuador
Idle No More/Basta de Pasividad: ¿Qué buscamos y hacia dónde nos dirigimos?
URGENT ACTION
PERU: TRADE UNION LEADERS DETAINED
Peruvian trade union leaders Pedro Condori Laurente and Antonio Quispe Tamayo were detained on 11 January on unfounded charges. No evidence that they committed any crime has been presented, and Amnesty International believes they are being detained solely because of their peaceful human rights work.
For more information:
http://www.amnesty.name/es/library/asset/AMR46/001/2011/en/b0e1771a-7a34-4408-ab81-bd2d4bb0a85b/amr460012011en.html
Chevron 'Dirty Tricks' Operative Diego Borja Targeted by Ecuador
A fantastic case involving multinational oil corporations, myriad allegations of mass corruption, clandestine videos filmed with items purchased from the Sky Mall catalog, and, incongruously, the sleepy nearby suburb of San Ramon took a new twist in San Francisco court.
For more Information:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/chevron_diego_borja.php
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/chevron_diego_borja.php
21st Century Socialism:the Strategy of the Left and the Latin
American Experience: Michael Lebowitz and Marta Harnecker
For more information:
http://www.socialistproject.ca/leftstreamed/ls83.php
American Experience: Michael Lebowitz and Marta Harnecker
For more information:
http://www.socialistproject.ca/leftstreamed/ls83.php