A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Trk�_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Trk�
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Cuba Libertaria - Anarchist Bulletin #14 January 2010 Paris France - Remarks on Chomsky, The Castros, Chavez ...

Date Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:06:07 +0200

My article "Chomsky on Chavez's jester," first published in the Bulletin CUBA libertarian
and then reprinted in English, French, Italian and German in different web has not been to the liking of few are seeing in the Castro, Chavez, etc., the champions of socialism and anti-imperialism today. And this despite the increasingly obvious evidence of what really are the "partner - ism "and" anti-imperialism "of these histrionic populist strongmen. Of course we would expect these reactions because there is no greater blindness that produced by joining providential men. History is full of case examples of collective blindness of this kind: that of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Peron and Evita, not to reach back - tar too far. Collective blindness that only history and generational change dissipated.

I will not be for me who try to restore the sight of those who do not want to see. The time, history will force them to Thus, although ... can not be said categorically, for it is enough to see the lovers of "real socialism" that remain there. And this despite the collapse of wall Berlin, the capital-communism "Chinese, etc..

What I expected, surprisingly, has been some criticism ... A "critical" no ques -
thione the bottom of my reaction to the buffoonery of Chomsky, but the way ... Well, in principle, this "critical" recognizes that these leaders, "the Castro, Chavez, Lula and Morales," represent "a mez - colanza pseudo leftist "besides being" self-styled anti-imperialist ". A" critical "surprise" you ... not only for this recognition and want "a society without social exploitation" and "without protection of a minority over the masses and no control of them "but because it endorses the view Social Democrat "need for workers to expand the area of the cage in which this - mos. "Zoom instead of destroying it. And this is justified because Chomsky said in November 1996, at History students at the University of Sao Paulo, "the decline of the state diminishes the space in which the public can exert influence "and that this" is not an anarchist goal.
A Chomsky presented as a commendable "fellow traveler" of anarchism, but also
insists we not forget that "Chomsky is not affiliated with an anarchist group, but is close IWWW of the EE. UU. "

It is surprising because this profession of faith social, which advises us to take
from curious approaches "anarchists", it prompts me to make some remarks
on Chomsky, the Castros, Chavez, etc.. Not only by questionable justification of Chomskyan
the state but also as the "critical" really tries to justify it: the silence fren -
conduct that you are contributing today, as yesterday's similar to emasculate the aspirations revolution of the exploited masses and discrediting the very idea of socialism as project to social emancipation. Conduct that apply to that point to "expand the surface of the cage and making the state the focus of public life, with the result that they were in the past and are giving in the present, and each judged by its social and political awareness.

Consequently, and because it seemed obvious, my remarks will focus on the responsibility of becoming an accomplice in this silence. Of course, Chomsky's responsibility for not
criticizing such behavior, the same as yesterday denounced even more revolutions contexts
cials, and also our own responsibility, as anarchists, whether for fear of "hurting
workers, especially Latin Americans, who have addresses and some confidence in leaders
which seem neither reliable nor serious, "we were quiet and not saying what we think of that popu - allegedly revolutionary unionism. What we think and say and, with courage and honesty to them honor, many dogmatic Marxists all over the world and in Cuba itself, and Venezuela.
The surety Chomskyan pseudo-revolutionary populism

Chomsky Being one of the most critical American intellectuals of the democracy, supposedly existing in the U.S.. UU., And the imperialist policies of governments nor Americanism, not exonerate him of being equally critical of the lack of democracy in regimes
much or more authoritarian than American. Moreover, Chomsky's anti-imperialism can not be an anti-imperialism of convenience, should be conviction. As it was in the past when castigates, by the same political and ethical considerations, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. A equidistance honest, moral and consistent with his ideas of justice and freedom for all. Hence that would be heard and to become ethical and political reference for all who reject the two sides of the unacceptable exploitation and domination.

Then, his criticism was not Manichean. He complained to a field that is not justified in
other. There was no bias or circumstances rhetoric but real demand consistency between
means and ends. Both in the side as in the other. It was therefore not a matter of morals and ours, as I wanted those who denounced and condemned the death penalty in the USA and justified in the USSR or the reverse. Chomsky was not then either of these or those. On the contrary, denounced those who practiced this double standard, and this is the Chomsky that should remain if you have not renegade than it was in the past. The Chomsky that the question of why he said that Lenin and Trotzky were the worst enemies of socialism in the twentieth century, worse than Hitler, Mussolini, Chang Kai-Chec, Truman and Churchill, said: "Contrary to what you mention, Lenin and Trotzky were enemies of socialism for several reasons. First systematically destroyed Russia, clearing and banning socialist organizations and other grassroots organizations, which appeared during the period of revolutionary enthusiasm, before Lenin and Trotzky are established power. Second, they did in the name of "socialism" and so sabotaged the socialism, not only in Russia but also worldwide. The anti-socialist tyranny instituted by Lenin and Trotzky was later transformed into a absolute monstrosity by Stalin.

Will today's Castro, Chaves, etc., More consistent with the socialist ideal that they were
then Lenin, Trotzky, and so on.? Are the "socialist organizations and other popular organizations lares "who decide in their countries or are Castro, Chavez, etc.., those who do?
Chomsky's liability is for this inconsistency, in that silence, as that Sen -
Tido has to say after being photographed with the caudillo Chavez and thank him for his century socialism XXI, which the country has "massive corruption, warlordism elements of traditional pest-Latin American "at the end of a 48-hour visit to Venezuela. To say nothing of his visit to Cuba, leaving photographed with Castro, another leader, shortly after he had made a shot black youths simply because they wanted to escape the "cage" which was and remains Cuba, without being killed or hurt anyone. Yes, indeed the number of people shot in Cuba is very away from the shot by the Cheka in Russia ... But at least for me, kill those young black is so odious and unacceptable as were the thousands of murders Chekists. Besides respond to the very logic of terror. And that is something that Chomsky should not be forgotten, nor even the nearly 80 years he must have then.

Moreover, Chomsky has said: "Anarchism, at least as I understand, is the ten -
dence of thought and human action that seeks to identify structures of authority and
of domination, to be called to justify from the time they are shown
unable to do and work for passing. Forms of oppression that were once barely rec -
nized and even fewer are fought today regarded as tolerable. It is a success and not
a reversal of anarchism. "
The bond of silence

For the same reasons that Chomsky felt obliged to repeat what he said
Lenin and Trotzky, and the same right as he was given to speaking his mind on
behavior of these two characters during the Russian Revolution, I'll still denounced the Castro Chavez, etc., Of being buried emancipatory aspirations of their peoples. Well
Not only is what I think but what they think and they keep repeating the militant associations and trade un-revolutionary unionists who defend the autonomy of social organizations and other organi -
popular organizations in those countries. Not only for breach of promises made to the can -
Paul and judicial repression against union workers and farmers who require such compliance
but for the criminalization of social struggle, as they did and are doing brothel schemes

The thread and the purpose of this form of government, supposedly "progressive" are the
same as in the past when the government crushed the popular rebellion with repression
military. Only now the domination strategy promotes the control of insubordination by
own citizens turned into arm of containment policies is -
such. Hence the implementation of the Missions (Venezuela), Socio-country programs (Ecuador), Solidarity Network (El Salvador) or Families in Action (Colombia), as Bono Johnny Pinto (Bolivia), or Bolsa Familia (Brazil), or the program Tekoporã (Paraguay), or the bonus My family Progresa (Guatemala), or the program Oportunidades (Mexico), among others, such as international strategies prevention and social control. In addition, of course, the "Committees for the Defense of the Revolution", the famo CDR're Cubans.
And all this for multinationals to continue working smoothly over the
exploitation of natural resources of these countries within the same development model of globalization neoliberal capitalism. And this despite, or thanks to the fiery speeches and anti-imperialist antioligarchical of Castro, Chavez, etc..

The amazing thing is the silence of certain leftist intellectuals to these actions
consolidate and ratify the political and economic liberalism, which, as in the past, only benefits the bureaucracy and bourgeois sectors close to those they govern. That left it before was critical, radical, iconoclast with discourses of power, and now, to support, endorse and adscri-birse to the political projects of the so-called progressive governments, has lowered the flag social criticism and attempts to justify the unjustifiable: the demagogy and corruption. A collusion goes beyond mere silence, since, in their zeal to prevent the debate, criticism and discussion within the left on the continent and the world, resort to the usual: the slander, the de-qualification and insult.
So while there is silence, a silence is complicity, the whole continent is
turning what is already some real socialists call "post-neoliberal" but also
you could call the "democratic" of "socialism" Chinese. And this is how a transition, which made by neoliberal governments have been openly traumatic occurs without major
tensions due to these governments, which is also called as "post-neoliberal".
Governments that, in addition to emphasize extractive processes, productivist, territorial privatization torial and social criminalization for the multinationals and the bourgeoisie of the region are tone by making the continent with the economic needs and labor injustices of globalization, tion of capitalism. To which must be added the loss of ethical credibility of the left-latinoo-American Organizations that are so committed to corruption, fraud, and the client-latroniciosism.
Given this situation, and with the same determination that Chomsky demonstrated at the time to do against which, for streets, accusing him of contributing to his criticism of the false "real socialism", the strengthening of counter-discourse of the field's pro-Yankee, and even hinted of he was hired by the CIA at the time, I will continue undaunted denouncing (and supporting few reported) these negative drift of emancipatory ideal. Drifts proposals and implede by Warlords and populist movements, demagogic, and histrionic falsely revolutions
NAIRES. Not only because it is false that in making this criticism is providing weapons to the enemies of the revolution, the true, the people and not the bureaucrats, but because this criticism is necessary, fundamental such, for the hardworking people can regain their independence and return to fight for a trans-social formation to end the exploitation and domination that supports so many centuries.

It will for my silence. And certainly not with slander, threats, critical self-sufficient
tes. Not only because I consider it a duty, as Chomsky then-but also because these
slanders and threats can oppose my history, my biography, in the field of combating
imperialism and all forms of power, such as self-critical historical facts.

Furthermore, why do I keep quiet, if there are many Marxist critics who, like myself, are outraged and demonstrate against the "cynical rhetoric of resignation," coinciding with the anarchists in that "Socialism can not be granted from above" and that to solve the problems of its construction tion, "the widest freedom, the broadest part of the population is necessary"? Why would, whether this coincidence between anarchists and Marxists critics, to update the need to recover autonomy for social movements and rejecting the dogmatic and doctrinal approaches in the fight against capitalism and the state is an encouraging fact? Not by conviction and ideological loyalty but logical conclusion of what we learn from history and daily life.
Indeed, as recognized by these Marxist critics "over the twentieth century,
much water has flowed under the bridges of revolutions "... As it is also true that" what
along social experiences and anthropological research, theoretical approaches
State have been enriched and deepened, "demystifying the fetishism of power to show" the
genealogy of power relations. "Besides that" liberal rhetoric of the minimal state
retreat of the state or merely highlight the profile with the core of its functions
repressive and prominent role in the setting up of bio-power devices. "Hence," if
the fabric of power relations must be undone, and if it is a long-term process, the
machinery of state power must be broken. "
And if we add to this the denunciation of "parliamentary illusions" of "parliamentary cretinism mentary "and revolutionary orthodoxies of all, how not to trust the meeting of all heterodox ideologies supposedly manumisoras in the struggle against Capital and the State!
Octavio Alberola
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en

A-Infos Information Center