“The film tells a universal story”, says Pilger, “analysing and revealing, through vivid testimony, the story of great power behind its venerable myths. It allows us to understand the true nature of the so-called war on terror.” (www.johnpilger.com)
In a post-9/11 world it’s strange that John Pilger’s The War on Democracy is about Latin America. During the film, Pilger makes a loaded declaration about the “irony” of what occurred on 11 September 2001 given what happened in Chile on 11 September 1973 when planes attacked the Palacio de La Moneda, while at the end of the movie Iraq gets a mention among those nations suffering because of American incursions. Although Pilger’s aim is to critique all such actions by the USA, the film contains a lot of material about countries that haven’t been in the spotlight for ages. Leaving aside questions about the reasons for Pilger’s focus, the documentary offers an interesting, if unoriginal, overview of the political travails of nations like Bolivia and Venezuela. Many of Latin America’s classic baddies make an appearance, including the United Fruit Company, John Foster Dulles and Augusto Pinochet. A Pinochet supporter’s statement about there being “no need to torture people, when you can shoot them” almost makes her the nastiest person in the movie. However, she’s beaten by the obnoxious former CIA head who’s open about how irrelevant the promotion of democracy is when American interests need to be protected. On the other side are the many unknown victims of various totalitarian regimes, as well as famous losses such as Archbishop Oscar Romero and Victor Jara, a folksinger who was murdered at Chile Stadium. Nonetheless, a more balanced filmmaker would’ve appreciated that it’s possible to criticise leaders like Hugo Chavez and oppose American imperialism (the fellow sitting behind me didn’t mind discussing corruption while the credits rolled), but, not unlike the Latin America he presents, Pilger is wedded to anachronistic politics. The film’s oddest moment comes with the playing of a cheesy song to accompany images of Venezuelans fighting back against the ultimately unsuccessful coup against Chavez. As for Pilger, his interviewing style is a tad Today Tonight, and he never seems entirely comfortable with the poverty-stricken people he romanticises.
The War on Democracy will be screening in Australia from 27 September 2007
“loaded… “unoriginal”… “anachronistic”- Darlene, employing slanted terminology during her lemonish “review”.
Point is, honey, “Anachronistic ” or not, these horrors DID occur, and if YOU had been someone locked in a prison somewhere with electrodes fastened to YOUR genitals, I’ll wager your own view of things would be a tad less “unoriginal” than they are in this out of character nonsense you offer above.
You would rather these things continued to be swept undee the carpet?
Wait a minute. I get it.
Pilger’s actual suffering and injustices stuff involving the suffering of millions gets in the way of SERIOUS feminist debates like name-changing( Deveny ) and valorised botoxing and rubber tits ( Cannold ).
Silly “anachronistic” me!
Shorter paul walter: I don’t agree with you Darlene, but I’m not sure precisely why yet. I’ll get back to you in a little while. In the meantime, here’s about 10 lines of gibberish.
Thanks for this review, Darlene. I take it that Pilger gives us a less-than-balanced appraisal of Chavez’ domestic efforts?
BBB
Oh, and what’s with the ‘honey’ bit?
BBB
Really perspicacious review Darlene. Thank you.
Paul Walter, as a right-winger myself, I really hope you continue to post. You make RWDBs seem intelligent. Part of being critical is the ability to critique fucked up shit on all sides. One person’s liberation movement is another person’s structural oppression. And by the way, please cut out the sexist “honey” lines, you are beginning to sound like Hugo Chavez: http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200501240801
“Point is, honey,
Point is, honey,
Point is, honey,
Point is, honey,
Point is, honey,
Point is, honey,
Point is, honey, and so on and so forth….”
Yeah, Paul Walter, just wanted to let you know thats all I can see or remember from your post, er, you see honey, the thing is, that kind of sexist shit just erased any “point” you were trying to make.
but I bet you wish you could take it back huh? doesnt it suck that you cant take it back? that it glares at you from the screen like some angry woman who just wont shut up and go away? those stupid honeys. the way they make us look.
BBB Antonio and casey want to talk about democracy and how easily it can be discarded in the interest of a super power or does that not fit in with your credo?
Sure, sounds nice. Mine was a ‘by the way’ query to paul – the ‘honey’ bit kinda sticks out.
Anyway, I’ve asked Darlene about Pilger’s portrayal of the Chavez regime, which seems relevant given the charge of imbalance and ‘anachronistic politics’ that Darlene has levelled against him. Presumably Darlene is offering the view that a film about a ‘war on democracy’ need not be a black-and-white affair during which an emerging totalitarian regime is lionised. Woah, irony alert!
BBB
A good friend who became a reborn lefty activist once told me that John Pilger was a national treasure. “Well, he certainly belongs in a museum.” was my reply. I could have put it less gently of course, but he’s chosen to emulate the guy. You can’t go in too hard on nice people.
There’s a huge market for this brand of horseshit – Pillager will clean up like the dirty capitalist he really is. You know, I can just picture Rumsfeld and Cheney as the faceless investors behind all these films laughing all the way to the bank.
Chavez reminds me a little bit of Mugabe – the younger Mugabe that stood up to Ian Smith and white-only rule in Zimbabwe. I bet he was also feted as a hero at the time.
DaOoSG, yep. Reminds me of what some lads from Guildford once said:
Really? It seems to me that in these time we need more, not less “anachronistic politics”. Was it Noam Chomsky who said of Pilger that the reason he makes people uncomfortable is that he confronts them with truths that they would otherwise prefer not to acknowledge, namely the reality of United States foreign policy.
As for me, I want films with passion and bias, films that believe in something and films that say something. And I want more anachronistic politics.
Vive l’anarchie..
Cheers…
Never liked him. Didactic and boring to boot.
Mick Strummer,
Yep, that’s what the world needs. More uncritical absolutist polemical crap from the unreconstructed Left to counter the uncritical absolutist polemical shit from the unreconstructed Right.
I saw the film and frankly I found it really REALLY boring and preachy. Think like Hillsong preachy. Subtlety was completely absent, as was complex analysis. Fundamentally, the film failed to change my view which is that:
1) American foreign policy has often been a complete failure on a practical, ethical and moral level,
2) Totalitarian Left governments in Latin America have been a complete failure on a practical, ethical and moral level,
3) American foreign policy hardliners have disregarded democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the lessons of history (in terms of political and economic policies),
4) Totalitarian Left governments in Latin America have disregarded democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the lessons of history (in terms of political and economic policies),
5) Both American foreign policy hardliners and Latin American Totalitarian leftists have and continue to bury their mistakes in a disgraceful manner.
Pilger added nothing to our knowledge of the region but instead further fortified his own apparent Left totalitarian sympathies using hyperbole, confected moral outrage, strawmen and extreme examples.
Darlene, there are several generations of left political people internationally who cut their teeth on knowing and studying the political intricacies of the countries that make up Central America, the Caribbean and Latin America, in the mid to late 20th century especially. For them, in many ways, these countries have never been “out of the spotlight” not least because of the overwhelmingly negative role the US has played in shaping their trajectory on all levels.
Like Tariq Ali, who post 9/11 has also turned his attention to radical political developments in Venezuela and elsewhere in the region, Pilger is always of reliable interest, though for me, and others, I suspect, he doesn’t charm, dig as deep or do nuance as well as would be preferred. But then he is no George Negus either.
Antonio – please could you give multiple (i.e, not just Cuba) examples of what you mean by “Totalitarian Left governments in Latin America”?
Absolutely. Damn right. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Let’s face it, in the commercial media the right have something of a dominant position when it comes to producing – how did you put it? – “uncritical absolutist polemical crap”. Anyway, as far as I am concerned, the more uncritical absolutist polemical crap there is, the better. After all, if nothing else, it helps force us to think about how and why it says what it says. Unless you are the sort of ignorant person who likes having their prejudices catered to, and does nothing except expose oneself to the uncritical absolutist polemical crap that fits with ones own political biases. Anyway.
Cheers…
PS. While we are watching all this uncritical absolutist polemical crap, we might at least take the opportunity to try and reconstruct ourselves.
Cheers…
so pilger didn’t steal the title from a book by two australian academics???
AndyC, as examples:
Mexico – 70 year long PRI government.
Haiti – Papa Doc regime
Nicaragua – Sandanista Regime
Bolivia- MNR government
Peru – Military dictatorship 1948-1979
Ecuador – Ibara presidency
Venezuela – Hugo Chavez
Obviously, these regimes differ in Left-ness (ie. nationalisation of Industry, redistribution of wealth etc) and Authoritanianism from time to time, however I think my point remains.
That said, I certainly don’t deny the fucked up shit Right Wing authoritarians have done in Latin America.
Hmmm, what do you mean by anachronistic Darlene? You could, arguably, apply that tag to Cuba, but not so much any other countries in SA. Both sadly, and fortunately in some cases, I don’t think there is anything anachronistic about any of the other countries in the continent.
In some ways, you could argue that Pilger’s focus on SA is itself anachrontistic, in that the perceived unique qualities of SA were responsible for much of what we call development studies today.
That said, as Jinmaro said, it’s a region that still deserves focus.
re: Pilger. I think people tend to position Pilger as the Naomi Robson of the left. Imho, Michael Moore assumes that mantle far more persuasively.
And as for positing him as the left’s Ackerman, etc. Pilger has and does do far more work ethically, informatively and correctly than Ackerman etc. could ever hope for. This does not make him perfect, though it does interest me that he seems to get under righties’ skins so much. Personally I admire him intensely, though I may not always agree with him. And I rarely find his reports that controversial. He is an award-winning journalist, after all.
Casey Anton and Bungo are classic examples of the sort of people I am talking about as to misconstructed and infantile priorities.
Let trivial issues like torture and politically imposed famine, and the agony of millions in places like Baghdad or even aboriginal settlements in the NT just vanish away into miniscualty before to the galactically significant example; whooaaa! of the use of the word “honey” in a post.
GROW UP Casey, et al. Preciousness is “out” since Britney and Paris; get OVER your infantile selves for five seconds, long enough to look around and “get lives” for your cotton-woolled neoliberal selves!
To Jinmaro and the others who resisted the temptation to misread/ misrepresent my comments, thanks.
To Darlene, I know the article is synchronic/diachronic operating on different levels and the generational, class and gender responses to the above simulacra are as much of interest for an alert readership ( as to Pilger, over time ) as, say, actual third world miseries.
Hope you feel better soon.
Having just got back from seeing the film followed by a Q&A with Pilger after, I’m still trying to articulate what I think of the experience. It is long and you do get preached at. But as a refresher in recent Latin American history I think it is still a story that needs to be told. The CIA guy was a classic and it is worth sitting through the entire doco just to see the scenes he is in. Pilger does make us feel uncomforable and it is far from a ‘feel good’ movie, but although he is very humourless, you come away feeling less manipulated than say seeing a Michael Moore documentary.
What was more stimulating was the audience questions, though many of them were statements – discussing Australia’s human rights issues, East Timor, Palestine and the Middle East. But the best bit was seeing how a democratic lefty audience deals with idiots so stupid as to leave their phone on – and answer it – during the session!
lol, I wouldn’t call Casey neo-liberal, Paul, based on her responses on LP… Certainly, calling someone honey doesn’t compare to torture, but neither does the existence of the latter excuse the former. It’s possible to both oppose torture, and avoid sexist patronising language, which I’m sure was your intention anyway, excepting the emotiveness of the issues catching up with you.
John Pilger is Australia’s Michael Moore. He gets under peoples’ skins, irritates those in positions of power, and all too often ends up becoming a target of relentless “ad hominem” criticism from both sides of politics. Leftist critics say this detracts from the issues he canvasses, but the fact is that the issues would not get so much attention without him. And – like Moore – his work tends to survive a rigorous examination of facts.
If Darlene wants “a more balanced filmmaker” maybe she should switch on Murdoch’s FOX News, who always give two sides to every story (Bush’s AND Cheney’s, as the joke goes). What’s really “anachronistic” about Pilger is that he is still wedded to ancient ideals of wrong and right, good and bad. The kids of post-modern political thought are way beyond that, right Darlene?
Of course i haven’t seen this film yet, but I loudly welcome ANY efforts to shine a light on US (and Australian, and British) atrocities, which the media continue to happily ignore. For example, how many people have died in Iraq since the war began? Over a million. How many do the politicians, military and media say? 30,000 is still commonly used figure.
Faced with that sort of misrepresentation, some hard-hitting in-your-face confrontation from Pilger is exactly what people need to see.
IMHO, of course.
Darlene:
Those Latin American countries have been the centre of attention at times in civilized parts of the world …. but never in the exceedingly narrow, monolingual entertainment-and-propaganda media in Australia [The Falklands/Malvinas War of the 'Eighties was a brief exception only because it starred Margaret Thatcher].
John Pilger is grating, annoying, provoking but he has three things going for him:
[a] He is biased – but his biases are right out front where you can see them. [b] He does tackle unpopular and unknown causes and he does get out of his office to see things on the ground. [c] He had the guts to speak openly about his German ancestry at a time when it was still very unfashionable to do so.
Will the Iraq War be forgotten and never mentioned in our history books, just like these old Latin American crimes? If Howard has his way, yes.
As I enjoy pointing out to those who think the MSM is dominated by lefty journo or right wing owners and that it’s all black and white among the lead polemicists, John Pilger and Steve Dunleavy are apparently still pretty good mates. They both recognise ultimately it’s about finding your audience and grabbing them by the (eye)balls.
No, sorry Patrick.
Can’t agree. The REAL issues people like Pilger deal are WAY too serious to be trivialised in the way Casey and yourself have trivialised them,through introduction of red herring, obscuring them through diversionary tactics. A most fanciful imagined transgression of some sort of priggish mid victorian style “etiquette”, equating to nothing more significant than folded lace napkins at a dining table.
“Honey” does NOT equate to the sufferings of mass famine, wars and torture.
ONLY people with neoliberal ethics could have remotely come up with such a silly, trivial waste of debating time, in the cause of PC.
And you, Patrick, ought to be ashamed of yourself for attempting legitimisation such a waste of blogging space at the expense of the thread topic.
Can we leave the cotton-wool world and faux indignation of the middle classes for a moment, to consider a REAL world of suffering and real issues begging for attention? Like, you are in agony somewhere and some twenty-first century Marie Antoinette responds to your suffering with the contemporary equivalent to “let them eat cake”?
I suppose it is a generational thing. What occupies the thoughts of the privileged castes will forever remain a mystery to me, beyond what it reveals about how the mortgage belt have blotted out uncomfortable reality, since the ‘eighties.
paul, cut out the personalisation of the comments and making wild assumptions about others’ motivations, please (eg “neoliberal ethics”, “mortgage belt”). It doesn’t add anything to this debate at all. And people have every right to take issue with you addressing Darlene as “honey” in a patronising and sexist manner.
But back on topic, Darlene, I’m not sure why that’s strange (leaving aside the debate about Pilger and his representation of the US’ role in Latin America which I don’t want to enter at the moment). I’ve just received my copy of the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s newish book The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India’s Future (review here from NYRB if anyone’s interested) in the post from Amazon. I was reading the intro, and she makes the point that we get a very distorted picture of the world if we only focus on “clash of civilisations” stuff post s11 – and she’s addressing an American audience. Her substantive point is to highlight both the presence of a vibrant democracy in India and the threats to it, not least from murderous political violence directed by right wing Hindus against Muslims, as well as to point out the very different role religion plays in politics in South Asia generally. That’s by the by, but the general point remains, and since the US has asserted a sort of hegemony over Latin America since the Monroe Doctrine way back when, and Latin America is also an incredibly important and interesting part of the world, I’m just not sure what’s involved in your point. Could you clarify, please?
What about the kids? Will no one think of the kids?
Chacun a son goat, nest-ce pas?
paul, what’s bizarre is that you get stuck into others for middle-class trivialisation of third-world misery while coming up with lines like “preciousness is ‘out’ since Britney and Paris”. Just accept that you got a bit out of shape and move on; you’re really the only one making a massive deal of it now, and certainly the only one who is even contemplating a moral equivalence between your sexist condescension and the crimes that Pilger is seeking to bring to the fore in his latest film.
BBB
You’d almost think the Russians in the following quote were referring to contemporary Australia:
(A quote from John Pilger speaking at Columbia University on 14 April 2006)
The hype regarding Rudd’s memory lapse today being a case in point. Sad days indeed.
Nabakov [11;37pm]:
Very well put.
Nasking [1:11am]:
That is yet another reason why Australia nowadays can be called a third wrld country, a banana republic. Things were very different when we still had the “National Times” weekly newspaper and before the ABC reverted to its Menzies mouth-piece role [and apparently the ABC in Brisbane will soon be colocated with the "Courier-Mail"!].
You cannot have a functioning democracy unless you have the open expression of a broad range of opinions, whether those opinions converge or diverge, depending on the issue. However, you canot avoid getting a “peoples’ democratic republic” or its quasi-fascist equivalent if the control of what people are allowed to see and hear and believe is concertrated in too few hands as it has in Australia.
Timely quote. The secret is that Big Media is owned by millionaire moguls like Salzberger and Murdoch, people who have a vested interest in championing the interests of the top 1%. Sure, they play with populist opinion (witness Tim Dunlop’s blog) but when push comes to shove they fall in line (witness Fairfax supporting Howard at the last election, and dropping Web Diary).
For someone like Pilger to even make a living doing what he does in such an environment is remarkable. I would remind readers of his work in support of the Balibo Five (also written off at the time, but now cited as a reference point).
But here we are, again discussing Pilger’s credibility, instead of the very important issues he raises in his latest film!
I guess we should all go see the movie,and make our own minds up.
“Pilgerâ??s actual suffering and injustices stuff involving the suffering of millions gets in the way of SERIOUS feminist debates like name-changing( Deveny ) and valorised botoxing and rubber tits ( Cannold ).
Silly â??anachronisticâ?? me!”
Paul, there’s room for all those debates. Look I get frustrated at Western women as well, but those issues matter. Sorry, mate. I don’t think I suggested that what’s been going on in Latin America or elsewhere is unimportant.
“Bingo”, both socialist regimes and fascist ones should be criticised.
“I take it that Pilger gives us a less-than-balanced appraisal of Chavezâ?? domestic efforts?”
Of course, and I didn’t really expect anything else. Chavez is (mostly) all good guy with his likeable personality and attempts at speaking English. Some of his “sins” are mentioned, but briefly.
Mick Strummer (the movie about your namesake was on as well the other night – would have loved to see that), in reponse to, “Really? It seems to me that in these time we need more, not less â??anachronistic politicsâ??, I have to disagree. Latin American really needs to break free of the old socialist/fascist thing. The poor will never be free if they keep embracing the former. Oh for a social democrat in such countries.
“Darlene:
Those Latin American countries have been the centre of attention at times in civilized parts of the world â?¦. but never in the exceedingly narrow, monolingual entertainment-and-propaganda media in Australia [The Falklands/Malvinas War of the â??Eighties was a brief exception only because it starred Margaret Thatcher].”
Fair enough point.
“If Darlene wants â??a more balanced filmmakerâ?? maybe she should switch on Murdochâ??s FOX News, who always give two sides to every story (Bushâ??s AND Cheneyâ??s, as the joke goes). Whatâ??s really â??anachronisticâ?? about Pilger is that he is still wedded to ancient ideals of wrong and right, good and bad. The kids of post-modern political thought are way beyond that, right Darlene?”
Well, I really enjoyed the doco about Fox, I think it was OutFoxed. I’m not sure I’ve ever watched Fox (perhaps once when I was at someone’s house). Pilger is wedded to old ideas about the Left and Right, which is not the same thing as being wedded to old ideas of wrong and right.
Pilger’s film is, as the quote above suggests, really a rant against what the US is doing in Iraq, and other places in relation to the War on Terror. Perhaps he thinks the poor and resilent folk of Latin America make more attractive subjects than a suicide bomber in the Middle East. I found the historical stuff about Latin America interesting in the film, but I still wondered why it was the focus.
As for the “middle-class trivialisation of third-world misery”, I am not from a middle-class background. And I don’t trivialise it. I think, in my post-mod way, that we in the West are self-obsession, selfish and spoilt.
Darlene
Thanks for the review, I will definitely see it! I adore Pilger, especially after reading his expose of Bob Hawke as a CIA agent! So much imperialism, so little time!
Darlene,
Perhaps the point Pilger is trying to make is that today’s GWOT lies are a direct result of the failure to persecute those earlier US misadventures in Latin America.
The list of Bush 43 appointees who “cut their teeth” in Latin America includes John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Poindexter, John Bolton, Oliver North, Robert Kagan, Dusty Foggo and Michael Ledeen.
Even the patterns of death squads and torture are the same.
[LINK]
[LINK]
For those interested John Pilger will be on ABC/ Jon Faine conversation hour some time after 11.00 Vic time this morning. It can be listened to live online here…
http://abc.net.au/melbourne/
Hi there,
I have not seen the film but I have studied globalisation and looked at Latin America as an area of study. Many people think that because the World Bank, IMF, placed neoliberalism on LAmerica, it has recently elected alot of social democratic govt’s – different types of social democrats, Chevaz being more left wing than others I take it. But in my reading there is alot of good stuff being done in Venez. What is the problem with Hugo C? He has alot of trade deals with other parts of Latin America etc
Bob was a CIA agent, and I just thought he was a pretty good PM.
“The list of Bush 43 appointees who â??cut their teethâ?? in Latin America includes John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Poindexter, John Bolton, Oliver North, Robert Kagan, Dusty Foggo and Michael Ledeen.”
That is pretty frightening.
Isn’t Chavez a socialist and not a social democrat?
Colour me shocked.
Darlene,
But the thing is, I don’t think there is anything anachronistic fascism or socialism, I think perhaps you are are thinking they are anachronistic because so much of the coverage we see in the west about South America is anachronistic – remake’s of Stone’s El Salvador, hitting the road with Che in The Motorcycle Diaries, old dudes playing piano in Buena Vista Social. Not to say these memes don’t have their part or exist, however they are only a small part of the whole – much like Australia’s seeming obsession with making movies about country boys who have gone off to the city and then return home years later.
When you say things like this, I think you are falling into the trap of thinking of the continent as one, consistent whole, which is most definitely not the case – and ironically formed a core of the criticism about SA Development theorists way back when (particularly from South Americans themselves, who resented the idea of their quite individual countries becoming part of a ‘giant tamale’).
There is a very wide spectrum of governments indeed in South America, ranging from arguably fascist to socialist and everything in between. Many of the people in these countries I think would resent the implication that they are not free. Free from what? Certainly, in some countries that would hold true, but by no means all, and arguably not even the majority.
I don’t think the paucity of social democrats (or indeed their abundance, as there are many, Brazil’s current government but one example) is a recipe for freedom or success or whatever in South America. The different problems the different countries face are far more complex – both socially and logistically – than the prescription of “more social democrats”.
Part of the problem that Pilger and others have tried to outline is that for too long we in the west (or north, or core) have tried to apply our solutions – half-baked solutions – to our perceived problems with South America (as opposed to some of the actual problems).
Rather than saying “South America needs this” or “South America is that”, we should be asking “What is South America?”, “What do the people in these countries want?” and “What are our responsibilities, in this area of the world, both in going in and staying out?”.
This dichotomy I think powers a lot of Pilger’s anger, he sees us going where we we shouldn’t go, and doing the wrong thing once we’re there. Sheesh man, worry about no social democrats in South America? We need more social democrats in North America. Maybe then the citizens of SA will be free.
and Paul, just because I think shooting someone in the head is worse than running a red light, doesn’t make running a red light okay dude. Sheesh, how old are you?
Hey, I’m getting a “duplicate comment” thingy, but my comment isn’t showing up (not the one to Paul, a long one), and I can’t see it awaiting moderation, either…
oh scratch that, it just popped up!
I’ve gotten the duplicate comment thingy myself, Patrick.
“But the thing is, I don’t think there is anything anachronistic fascism or socialism”.
Well, perhaps I should say that they should be.
“Not to say these memes don’t have their part or exist, however they are only a small part of the whole – much like Australia’s seeming obsession with making movies about country boys who have gone off to the city and then return home years later.”
That’s a good point (yikes, don’t you hate those films?), but I think Pilger is as guilty as anyone of presenting a particular view of Latin America. It’s the poor and it’s the rich (the evil rich and the saintly poor).
“Sheesh man, worry about no social democrats in South America? We need more social democrats in North America. Maybe then the citizens of SA will be free.”
True, we need them everywhere.
It’s a bit like Matthew Newton’s lawyer saying that assault charges laid against him are ‘minor’ because “Ninety people died in Iraq today, most of them kids.”
You can walk and chew gum at the same time.
As someone who grew up in SA, well it was interesting living the cold war fallout of the Yanks and Brits fucking up my country.
Even more fun was the experience of living with the totalitarian kleptomaniac asshat that the country was left with after their meddling, though to be fair he was probably better than the totalitarian communist asshat who would have won the elections if they were held fair and square.
As for Mr Chavez, well we’ve been down this road before in SA, and I’ve lived that experience once before to tell you all how it’s gonna play out. Chavez is no democrat and he’ll screw the poor in Venezuela as sure as the ruling classes there have.
He’s a militaristic fuckwit who wanted to invade the country of my birth when he was the head of the army in Venezuela. Yes, guess what? It was for the oil, how funny is that?
The left would do themselves a lot of favours if they just got over their hagiography of both Pilger and Chavez.
A pox on all their houses.
“As for Mr Chavez, well we’ve been down this road before in SA, and I’ve lived that experience once before to tell you all how it’s gonna play out. Chavez is no democrat and he’ll screw the poor in Venezuela as sure as the ruling classes there have.
He’s a militaristic fuckwit who wanted to invade the country of my birth when he was the head of the army in Venezuela. Yes, guess what? It was for the oil, how funny is that?
The left would do themselves a lot of favours if they just got over their hagiography of both Pilger and Chavez.
A pox on all their houses.”
Well said, Phil.
Yes, very well put Phil.
Part of the problem with how Chavez is represented is that this outdated, fetishised image of Latin America is being laid over the top of the scene, and that image was largely a product of the Anglosphere to begin with. I think that is where you could legitimately speak of ‘anachronism’. The left is doing itself no favours in maintaining its investment in that image, and I don’t think we’re helping anybody in South or Central America by maintaining it either.
I forget where I read this, but apparently inequality (as measured by the Gini Coefficient) is rising in Venezuela as Chavez’ coterie take control of the economy and enrich themselves. Utterly, depressingly, predictable. It’s amazing what you can get away with if you’ve got a Great Satan lying around…
BBB
hear hear, Adam.
Phil,
Well put. More scrutiny of Chavez is needed not more adulation at a distance.
“I forget where I read this, but apparently inequality (as measured by the Gini Coefficient) is rising in Venezuela as Chavez’ coterie take control of the economy and enrich themselves. Utterly, depressingly, predictable. It’s amazing what you can get away with if you’ve got a Great Satan lying around…
BBB”
Of course, the enemy of (the) enemy is not necessarily a friend.
It’s predicatable, alas.
I have not seen the doco so cannot comment on it. What I do find “strange” is the hysteria, when it comes to John Pilger and his opinions; not “strange” , in “a post-9/11 world”, that John Pilger’s The War on Democracy “is about Latin America”. Cripes, he has spent many years writing about that area and it is critical in world affairs.
Unlike some, the horrific destruction of the twin towers and the many who were lost, does not make for the beginning or end of the world as I know it. I have seen many events in my time that have been significant and I do not buy that spin. Pilger has interesting things to say on many subjects. You get the idea that many, in Australia, would be happy to have him banned from speaking and entering his own country.
Yes, well said joe2 and patrickg. This is really a trite post, unworthy of LP’s generally high standards.
I’ve never really understood why Pilger irritates so many on the progressive side of politics.
Maybe he illuminates issues that some would prefer to ignore.
For Darlene her irritation seems to stem from the fact that he is dealing with SA rather than the Middle East, but she is unwilling or unable to acknowledge the obvious link between the two. When has a documentary film maker’s choice of subject become a point of criticism anyway?
Likewise, Darlene seems incapable of understanding or even appreciating the complexity of an entire continent, while accusing Pilger of over simplification. Chavez doesn’t represent SA anymore than Mugabee represents Africa.
It’s bad enough that Pilger is vilified in the corporate media because he has the courage to speak out on issues that are otherwise ignored. That LP should be adding to that criticism, albiet in a rather snide and half-hearted manner is disappointing.
PS- Which isn’t of course to say that Pilger should be immune from criticism, just that the criticism needs some foundation.
“Unlike some, the horrific destruction of the twin towers and the many who were lost, does not make for the beginning or end of the world as I know it. I have seen many events in my time that have been significant and I do not buy that spin. Pilger has interesting things to say on many subjects. You get the idea that many, in Australia, would be happy to have him banned from speaking and entering his own country.”
Well, I think that’s overstating the case. I thought his movie was interesting (as I said), but, as I also said, “unoriginal”. Pilger’s aim is to argue against US involvement in Iraq and against the War on Terror. So he obviously thinks 9/11 is important.
Pilger is a left social democrat and so is Chavez and his government.
Journalist-writers like David Marr and Robert Fisk and John Pilger and Susan Sontag, Tariq Ali, the list goes on who tell the truth, or even draw attention to anti-imperialist struggles will always invite the sort of ignorant, reflex frothing-at-the-mouth idiocies from anti-democrats (no matter how they like to gloss it) that this post and thread have so well illustrated.
http://www.socialistpartyaustralia.org/archives/2007/01/11/venezuela-chavez-announces-the-nationalisation-of-telecom-and-power-companies/
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/viva-chavez-venezuela-is-the-hip-new-socialist-utopia/2007/01/19/1169095977635.html
“Socialism or death – I swear it,” he said last week, and declared himself a communist.”
I couldn’t speak to Pilger’s precise politics, but that’s an inaccurate characterisation of Chavez. Democrats don’t stack the courts, shut down opposition media, etc. Chavez is up front about being a socialist. I see no reason why we shouldn’t accept his own characterisation of his politics. If you’re looking for social democrats in South America, look to Michelle Bachelet in Chile.
Sorry, crossed with Darlene.
Chavez calls himself a lot of things. But his government is social democratic, not socialist – though perhaps you need to define your terms.
That’s cool.
I find it odd that the label “anti-democrats” is being attributed to people when social democrats is more appropriate. A social democrat would oppose the extremes of the Left and the Right. Interestingly, something else I read suggested Chavez was a “populist” rather than a socialist. Of course, one can be a populist socialist or a right-wing populist or even a liberal populist (as we’ve seen in Holland).
Perhaps you need to define yours, jinmaro. In what way is repression of dissent and corruption of public institutions democratic?
jinmaro, are you calling me an anti democrat? Tell me you’ve lived the fallout of men like Chavez (left and right) and his ilk and you’re not some punk western leftist whose only experience with the global south is a quick spot of anti imperialist tourism?
You know the type, where you get a good dollar return for your lodgings, beer and food, get to live a bit of guilt ridden angst but have the out that they don’t of going back home to your nice middle class suburb.
My family has lived the eventual train wreck of guys like Chavez and lost everything.
It’s not. You call the British Labour Party social-democratic or Australia a democracy on those terms? I don’t.
The point I was making is that Darlene’s pontificating about what sort of regime should exist in Venezuela is anti-democratic. What business is it of hers what government exists there which in any case is popularly supported by the majority of its people and is improving their material lives on the basis of its oil revenues and its left social democratic aspirations?
What country are you talking about Phil?
I asked you a question. Anyway, If you know your SA geography and Venez history you should be able to figure it out.
I think you have already answered your own question, Phil.
Good question, but isn’t it really just a manifestation of the tried and true western adage that democracy is fine as long as it’s our form of democracy and leads to a form of government that we feel comfortable with.
After all we know, and will always know what’s best for others in distant lands because we are the centre of civilization and the very apex of democracy and freedom.
Amen to that. Sorry, Darlene, I appreciate that your post was in good faith, but perhaps a review by someone with more knowledge of the subject matter might have been more productive. Just saying.
I have not read one piece of rational criticism of Pilger, whereas I have seen a lot of reflexive anti-Pilger and anti-Chavez nonsense (presumably filtered down through misleading stories in the Murdoch media and like-minded US sources).
The substance of this whole thread seems to be how people FEEL about Pilger, rather than what you think about anything he has done, or even the movie in question. This gut-based response was largely prompted by Darlene’s original observations, such as:
That assumes that Pilger MUST be anti-Chavez if he wants any real credibility. Why? Because that’s how Darlene feels about Chavez.
That’s being “balanced” in Howard’s rabid rightwing Australia. This is the New PC.
PS: I am not Far Left. I do not support the violent overthrow of the government or the establishment of commune-based local power posses. I don’t wear little badges pinned to my Mao-style hat. My hair is not long and I don’t do drugs.
PPS: Why does every discussion of Latin America (or even leftist politics) have to degenerate into a Chavez popularity poll these days? There is a lot more going on in the region that just Hugo, and a lot of important history before he even came on the scene.
“Democrats don’t stack the courts, shut down opposition media, etc.”
John Howard can therefore, definitely, be eliminated as a “democrat”.
Weren’t we talking about John Pilgers’ movie?
That apart from Darlene , i gather, nobody has seen.
jinmaro, do you resist the urge to pontificate about the government of America on the grounds that Bush was popularly elected? That argument just doesn’t stand up.
I agree that the debate about Venezuela has been somewhat simplified here, but given all the evidence to the contrary (including his own statements), I think the onus is on you to demonstrate in what way Chavez is a “left social democrat”.
Hey, Mark, Bush wasn’t popularly elected! At least not the first time.
“That assumes that Pilger MUST be anti-Chavez if he wants any real credibility. Why? Because thatâ??s how Darlene feels about Chavez.
Thatâ??s being â??balancedâ?? in Howardâ??s rabid rightwing Australia. This is the New PC.”
It’s pretty clear that Darlene is using the term ‘balance’ in its more traditional sense. Not every statement is a sign of the rise of the neoconservatives, and not all anti-Pilger or anti-Chavez sentiment comes down to some overarching narrative being offered by the MSM either. I take Darlene’s desire for balance to be ultimately about the possibility of nuanced argument. In my experience, that’s not part of Pilgers repertoire either.
“Amen to that. Sorry, Darlene, I appreciate that your post was in good faith, but perhaps a review by someone with more knowledge of the subject matter might have been more productive. Just saying. ”
Wow, that’s patronising. So presumably David and Margaret are experts on everything they see? When does one become “with more knowledge”? Are you going to decide? Sorry, no dice. I went and saw the movie and had an opinion on it, as I am entitled to do.
Another Outspoken female has seen it as well.
“John Howard can therefore, definitely, be eliminated as a â??democratâ??.”
Yes, he probably can.
Well Mark many Americans wouldn’t agree that Bush was [fairly elected]. But aside from that where have I ever said that the US should have say a socialist or any other sort of government for that matter? I would not presume to do so – being a democrat.
There is plenty of stuff you can find on line about the political characterisation of the Venezuelan government. I haven’t got time or the inclination to go into it and it is not the central point here anyway.
Tariq Ali’s recent book “Pirates of the Caribbean” would be a good book to start for recent update and overview.
adrian, do you refrain from criticising his actions in his second term? How about Tony Blair? Nicholas Sarkozy? Vladimir Putin? (How free and fair are the elections in Venezuela, incidentally?) Come on, it’s a silly argument.
Thanks to Phil for lending his personal experience to this. It’s appreciated.
“This is really a trite post, unworthy of LP’s generally high standards.”
Really, I think I write rather well. You’re free to disagree, of course. Obviously, this post has annoyed you sufficiently to write such a thing. I’ve been around blogging long enough that such comments are like water off a duck’s back (quack quack).
“It’s pretty clear that Darlene is using the term ‘balance’ in its more traditional sense. Not every statement is a sign of the rise of the neoconservatives, and not all anti-Pilger or anti-Chavez sentiment comes down to some overarching narrative being offered by the MSM either. I take Darlene’s desire for balance to be ultimately about the possibility of nuanced argument. In my experience, that’s not part of Pilgers repertoire either.”
Thank you. As I said, it’s possible to criticise Chavez and oppose American imperialism. I never realised that opposing American imperialism would be so problematic : )
PS – I have never voted anything but Labor in my life (bar voting for the Greens once and the Democrats a couple of times). Such a neo-con.
Yes, I know. It was just a flippant comment, as shown I had hoped, by the exclamation mark.
Darlene, I’m glad that you weren’t offended.
To be clear though, it wasn’t a comment on your writing as such, more the assumptions that lay behind it, which I think are half developed at best.
Agree than John Pilgerâ??s mildly hectoring manner can be irritating. But hey! Who lives in a Wart-Free-Zone?
Pilger has championed the rights of systematically oppressed people worldwide in a career that has spanned close to half a century. Two examples of his courage:
1) About ten years ago, while interviewing President Nelson Mandela (4 Corners or Panorama) Pilger asked him why the â??economic apartheidâ?? still remained, while the â??racial apartheidâ?? had been dismantled in the RSA. Mandela, lest we forget, was a global political Rock-Star at the time. Mandela squirmed and agreed that the â??economic apartheidâ?? did indeed still exist.
2) While TNI, Kopassus and their goon squads were busy exterminating some 150,000 men, women and children in East Timor, Pilger donned mufti and illegally entered Timor Lâ??Este to film a doco about the slaughter, and the plight of all who resisted Soehartoâ??s henchmen.
Messengers like John can consider themselves lucky to have made it into their sixth decade without being shot. If he didnâ??t get up peoples’ noses, he wouldnâ??t be doing his job.
Thanks for the heads up, Darlene. Looking forward to his most recent work.
That’s fair enough, Adrian. I guess one of the positives of blogging is that others can come along and add their knowledge about a subject.
Thanks, EC.
Getting up people’s noses is important, but I think it can alienate potential audience members and supporters.
That was a good question that he put to Mandela.
Now I’ve heard it all: if I say that I’d prefer not to have a communist running Venezuela I’m an anti-democrat. Anyone would think that adrian, jinmaro, et al believe that democracy starts and ends with elections. Criticising Chavez is a crime for which journalists and academics have been temporarily imprisoned (the old ‘squeeze and release’, etc.) I’ve never come across a social democrat who’s into that kind of stuff. And yes, Pilger does lose credibility in my eyes if he makes a movie called ‘The War on Democracy” and then provides a platform for filth like Chavez. Can’t wait to actually see the movie for myself, though.
Mark, I thought you were a Chavista (seriously). I could have sworn that we’ve had discussions about this guy before and that you’d expressed some form of approval. Perhaps that was before the RCTV fiasco?
BBB
Darlene, of course your opinion is legitimate and I am not calling you a neocon. But I think this thread speaks for itself.
You criticized Pilger as anarchronistic and unbalanced, but still have provided nothing substantial in support of that criticism. You express frustration at Pilger’s decision to focus on Latin America, yet your comment #42 (here) suggests you were unaware of how LA history links to Bush 43′s GWOT cabal. Perhaps that in itself is a fair criticism of the movie – if you did not make the link, perhaps Pilger has not made it clear enough.
Got it in one BBB. It is really very simple.
I’d prefer not to have John Howard running Australia or George Bush running the USA.
BBB
seems like chavez, winning free and fair election after election with a huge approval rating, is held to a higher standard than most other leaders. compare popular perceptions of chavez with those of uribe – whose government has an infinitely worse human rights record. some journalists have been imprisoned in venezuela, but I expect that would happen to supporters of a failed anti-democratic coup in any country, including Australia. the mainstream media in venezuela is more anti-government than is australia’s.
It is pretty ironic that a left social democrat like John Pilger who has been effectively blackbanned by the Australian MSM media for decades for the reasons Enemy Combatant and others have alluded to and who writes for widely read and respected left social democratic publications like Britain’s the New Statesman and the Guardian, gets such a bucketing on a “left of centre” political blog like LP.
Just sayin’.
Phil and Darlene, would you mind elaborating on this? What country, when, what date please?
It is pretty ironic that a left social democrat like John Pilger who has been effectively blackbanned by the Australian MSM media for decades for the reasons Enemy Combatant and others have alluded to and who writes for widely read and respected left social democratic publications like Britainâ??s the New Statesman and the Guardian, gets such a bucketing on a â??left of centreâ?? political blog like LP.
Just sayinâ??.
Clearly, LP is just another shill for the Imperialist John Howard Government!
“Clearly, LP is just another shill for the Imperialist John Howard Government!”
That’s funny, Tim T. It’s good to see a diversity of opinion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/17/wchavez117.xml
“A career military officer, Chávez founded the leftist Fifth Republic Movement after being a leader of a failed 1992 coup d’état against the democratically-elected President of Venezuela.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=avCMbMfGuCyI&refer=latin_america
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/1356978
etc etc
Cripes, there’s a lot of strange stuff on the interweb about how Americans (or certain Americans) are embracing the word “imperialism”.
No time to do anymore looking now, though. Thanks again for the chuckle, Tim T.
Darlene those links prove nothing and I am still waiting to hear what country it was that Phil said Chavez was about to invade – a piece of intelligence that you heartily endorsed in your comment above.
Nice example of the fallacy of false dichotomy, amongst a number of choices from Logic 101.
Since you seem incaplbe of using google, a quick search shows that Venezula cliams around half of Guyana probably what Phil refers to, something which Chavez restated when he took office. I don’t know about planning to invade.
Eg.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/claim.htm
http://notesfromthemargin.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/venezuela-and-its-claim-of-most-of-guyanas-land/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-VenezBoun.html
â??A career military officer, Chávez founded the leftist Fifth Republic Movement after being a leader of a failed 1992 coup dâ??état against the democratically-elected President of Venezuela.â??
Worth a bit of background information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo
I’m too dumb for the fancy html linky stuff but hoping that somebody will come along and teach me one day.
wow cool! the linky thing is automatic!
I did not say about to.
You really don’t know the region do you?
Why the pussyfooting, Philo? This is what you said. Details please or are you just a sockpuppet?
BBB, some of what Chavez has done is good. A lot is not. I certainly have shifted my general view since the RCTV fiasco, but this sort of “Bush bad, Chavez good” attitude in my opinion is anything but useful analysis. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Given that jinmaro can’t justify her opinion as to why Chavez should be seen as a social democrat, and doesn’t know anything about the militaristic background and Venezuela’s claims on Guyana, I think that’s all we have here.
How unseemly, this terrier with a mouthful of postman’s sock.
pussies are felines and feminine last time I looked, FDB. Think “Chick” and you might get close to the meaning imputed here. Perhaps you need an anatomical species map?
What the fuck are you talking about?
if you have to ask… and so crudely too! My my.
Attentive readers of Darlene’s post will now be aware of precisely how much honey it takes to activate a hive-mind
Venezuela had claims on Guyana? You don’t say! Now tell me again, how was it that this continent got divided up into idealised, artificial, colonialist-contrived separate, unviable nation states?
And just what do many progressive Latin Americans think about this history today and necessary solutions?
Oh, and let’s not mention the role of the CIA here either, oh no. And wasn’t it just one year before 9/11 that the US government engineered its coup against the government of Venezuela.
Love some people’s priorities here and profound understanding of history!
Hi Darlene, hope you are feeling well, or better. Thanks for explications.
The thread has blossomed into a beauty. I (think) I know where you are coming from and why.
It is certainly true that we cannot expect too much, too soon from countries as badly damaged by history as the South and Latin- American ones. Merely putting in mass leftist or democratic socialist governments in itself won’t cure the problems endemic of the region.
Framing the debate in a certain way, as you did, has breathed life into the. I beleive this is your modus operandi as a didactic controversialist; resultantly the conversation is now coming up to date. I envy your skills.
If you genuinely beleive what you have written, without further revison or qualification, however, I must suggest you are not seeing the forest for the trees as to neo colonialism and the post colonial “other”: there is a loss of balance or “vision” as to proportion and priority.
At worst you are doing what Bush and Howard are doing with Iraq when they “blame” an ineffetual Iraqi government “victim” for a situation way out its ability to deal with. A situation incidentally created by the COW itself in the first place, that it is now seeks to alibi itself over by “blaming the victim”.
Another analogy would involve the Howard government’s smearing of Aborigines and the NT and State governments.
It’s no use just seeing a situation as it is “now”: the context is “all”.
If some aboriginals have become brutalised drunkards, or third world regimes fail, let’s look at WHY and then apportion blame FAIRLY if that needs to be done. The lazy option of just taking up the cheap option of moral indignation at the alleged sins of those who themselves are misunderstood victims ought to be beyond consideration by now.
I understand this is the point Casey and others would have made as regards my own polemics- women are also a historically- victimised, culturally- evolving group and should not be judged on their attempts to understand and express themselves and their predicament when these seem a litle clumsy, sometimes.
As to feminism in general, going to uni and having it ( and subaltern theory ) explained at least at the basics by experts, enabled my access to a “missing link” that gave meaning to the rest of my politics and social investigations.
Which is probably why I detest the tabloid version of feminism all the more, and for subtly different reasons to Hansonists. I don’t want feminism destroyed- I have nothing to fear and everything to gain from it. I’d like to see it freed from essentialist and absolutist reductions that render it laughable though. And its exploitation by tabloidism imposed on it by people who neither care for or understand it, because it is worthwhile as something more than a catspaw for the Right. Anthony, it doesn’t NEED an dumb-down Deveny/ SBS style revisionist botoxing to soothe the sensibilites of market-demographic yuppies, because it is good enough and has a BETTER real purpose as it is.
I think your position re: Chavez is a very sensible one Mark.
Partial retraction: I’ve been reading some of Pilger’s journalism since I last posted (it’s been a while), and I might go as far as to say that I actually object more to the ways of thinking that he inspires than to his work.
anyway, one thing is for sure. In a 100-200-500 years people are going to be reading John Pilger and not his pissant do-nothing detractors who in this context shall justly remained unnamed.
I don’t know if I’d go that far, jinmaro.
of course you wouldn’t, Adam.
[Darlene querying why JP would focus on LA in this film about the war on democracy].
Darlene, you still haven’t answered the very important question put to you by Mark and others as to why you think it odd, or mysterious, or incomprehensible or stupid or whatever it is you think about why Pilger would focus on this region in the context of post 9/11 international politics?
We are all waiting to hear what you meant by this.
I think it fair to say that Chavez is a work in progress. Less fair, is the default ‘attack dog approach’ that John Pilger seems to cop whenever he enters Australia. Is it the the tall poppy syndrome?….. “He left the best country on earth and should go ‘weak at the knees’ about how bloody wunderful it is, on return”.
I reckon he has been a bloody good journalist, over many years, and deserves lots more respect. Particularly as there is hardly any SA news in Oz apart from that filtered through the ruppy sieve.
No he is not. He is a very good polemicist, and that is a valuable and respectable role because it challenges and forces us to think.
But he is in no sense a journalist.
“But he is in no sense a journalist.”
No he is like an old Antony Loewenstein.
As far as the reason for the South American historic focus, this quote from Pilger himself might help:
More at http://www.warondemocracy.net, including some intriguing reviews! LOL
Jinmaro, perhaps what Brian, Darlene and the rest mean is, if the current lefties are less than absolute perfect we should automatically consign the whole of the continent and its suffering inhabitants back into the clutches of thugs like Somoza, Pinochet, Videla and co, instead!
You remember, all the dozens of little Sadam Husseins just as eagerly propped up by the US for generations, from Guatamala downwards, just as the “old” Right in Venezeula is still propped up by them for trouble-making purposes at this very moment.
Perhaps not. For a start, Chavez isn’t that influential in much of Latin America. Secondly, this is just more juvenile “with us or against us” rhetoric worthy of GWB himself. Obviously, there are other alternatives to Chavez than supporting dictators or Bush. Can’t the Green Left crew get their head around that?
Yeah, things like contempt for the rule of law and freedom of speech are just minor imperfections, aren’t they?
bbb – I’m not sure where you read that either. But it wasn’t at the US State Department website though. Those “hagiographers” of the left report a decrease in the Venezuelan gini coefficient from 0.618 in 2003 to 0.45 in 2006.
Keep it up with the expert commentary.
In the intensely antagonistic political climate surrounding US-Venezuelan relations there is a lot of posturing inevitably on both sides. The failed military coup against Chavez a couple of years ago polarised things even more than they might otherwise have been. US dependence on Venezuelan oil means this issue will not go unresolved.
The US seeks his downfall. Their interventionism causes an equal and opposite reaction obviously. It is not only the Green Left who will choose sides in a case like this.
There is an obvious and huge risk that Chavez will become dictatorial a la Castro. But if that is the result it will be the result of a tango that takes two. Meanwhile the people of Venezuela keep voting for him.
Any country that suffers military coups and counter-coups cannot be judged by standards of countries where democratic stability has held long-term sway.
It takes time. And it needs other countries to lay off a bit. Trouble is they have too much oil for that to happen.
That’s missing my point, wbb. You can support Venezuela’s sovereignty against American imperialism without canonising Chavez and exempting him from all criticism, and without making him out to be something he’s not as some commenters here are – a democrat.
And that’s a reasonable point, but then, even figures involved with his government and parties previously supporting him have now spoken out against his undemocratic moves.
Will do, thanks.
BBB
Kim, who is “exempting him from all criticism”?
Me?
No. I made no actual judgement concerning Chavez at all, beyond suggesting that, at worst, he would be no worse than the US- supported rightists he succeeded, with, incidentally, much obvious popular support.
Now, which “alternatives” to Chavez might you have had realistically; specifically in mind?
Were they available a few years ago when the masses decided Chavez was their man?
Not popular enough in comparison? The Venezuelen people had to choose quickly, a bit like the ALP having to choose between Beazly and Rudd. And even Chavez was preferable to them, let alone the CIA-sponsored Falangist landed- gentry scum who had misruled for so long.
Or were all the “alternatives” living in the flea-ridden barrios of Caracas; hardly literate or healthy enough after centuries of neglect to be able to do better?
Perhaps, some of the “alternatives” were in fascist torture-jails, like elsewhere in South America, or dead because of death squads funded by the CIA and local Kleptocracy?
Do you actually not specify your actually-nebulous or evennon-extant ” alternative” because the only force with the clout to wrest power from Chavez over recent times has actually been the embittered old Kleptocracy itself? Don’y you want folk to understand that, because you don’t want to detract from your own peevish right wing ( obviously ) “green-left” smear?
Kim, thought better of you. Truly. Sadly.
You must realise that things can’t change ‘yesterday’ in these places, even under the best of circumstances. Again, who or what what( has been ) your tangible alternative, that we all should have been able to put a face to?
With the Bushist Americans, who some “exempt from all criticism”, lurking in the background trying the Latin American destabilisation equivalent of Phelps truculent election publicity- smear against Col. Kelly, allow any alternative genuine non- conservative alternative a “fair go” ( from the Venezuelen people’s point of view )?
And yes, Bungo, others WILL keep up their ( relatively, in comparison ) “expert commentary”, until you departure brings more substantial relief from nonsense like yours, for them.
Kim’s fallacious whopper.
Spare us the small “l” liberal ennui, Kim. It is not an attractive look in a grownup discussion about serious matters or at all conducive to complex thought.
No one on this thread has “canonised” Chavez. What a juvenile reductio ad absurdum, but not untypical I might add.
And as for being part of a Green Left crew. That’s short for commie, Trot, homo-treehugging-greenie, right?. Well, wrong in my case (except for tree-worshipping – my totem is the angophora). Though I can’t, nor would presume, to speak about the political affiliations of the other commenters on this thread who have essentially agreed with my points, in contradistinction to the Chavez and Pilger bashing or dismissal of BBB, Antonio, Mark and Darlene.
Your swipe though, it does always bear repeating for the sake of democracy, is most certainly the identical, irrelevant, ignorant swipe used in political debate historically by the Right against, well, everyone with whom they disagree, regardless of political persuasion or affiliation. But then most people know this. Especially most Americans and Australians at all interested in progressive politics and a knowledge of 20th century history.
Your LP blogger mates lost the debate on this thread Kim. Suck it up and live with it without descending to such murky lower depths.
Moreover, given that you feel no need to make any statement which shows you have the slightest understanding of the geo-politics of the region or the paramount role the US government plays in it, which is the focus of Pilger’s doco, and which any freedom loving person would want to mention if they intervened in this debate, then you are veering real close to being an apologist for the US government. Objectively that is. Perhaps that was not your intention. You are entitled to your view, whatever it is – as usual it is pretty unclear to me, sorry, it is the way you write – as others are to theirs – without the undemocratic ad hom. swipes.
In truth, I have little to no interest in Chavez as a person or a leader but I am interested in what a fine, courageous journalist such as John Pilger reports about what is already known to many about what the majority of Venezuelan people want and which has given people all of the world cause for hope – particularly in the Middle East where Chavez is hot and in the belly of the beast itself with its huge Latino population. That is, a government on the side of the oppressed peoples of the region, supported by these people, and which is effectively standing up to a hog-tied US imperialism which hasn’t been able to invade Venezuela to crush this democratic threat which it dearly wishes to do, but can’t, for the moment, because of the Iraq quagmire.
Yee-hah! Fairly makes me shake my piquant booty! Love the scent of insurrectionary Latino insolence on the morning air.
Jose Marti
Hahahahahaha! You’ve hit a sore spot there, Kim. Keep up the good work. Oh, and welcome to the far right: apparently that’s where you end up without the requisite amount of enthusiasm for certain figures.
“It is certainly true that we cannot expect too much, too soon from countries as badly damaged by history as the South and Latin- American ones. Merely putting in mass leftist or democratic socialist governments in itself won’t cure the problems endemic of the region.”
Well, won’t cure it all, Paul. Just going from one extreme to another is not helpful.
“Darlene, you still haven’t answered the very important question put to you by Mark and others as to why you think it odd, or mysterious, or incomprehensible or stupid or whatever it is you think about why Pilger would focus on this region in the context of post 9/11 international politics?”
Yes I did, my suspicion is because the poor of Latin America make more attractive subjects than some bloke with a bomb tied to his waist in the Middle East.
Oh and Mark if you are going to bang on about press freedom in Venezuela, you better do so elementary fact checking about who owns its, its relative freedom and the CIA connections of the media outlet whose propaganda you have apparently swallowed.. Tsk Tsk.
Adam, for someone who on a previus thread showed no understanding of the democratic purpose and role of philosophy I always take anything you write as functionally useless.
Thanks Darlene, your answer is even worse than I would have suspected. But good for all to see.
Lol! It just keeps on coming folks. Gold.
Jinmaro, I think that your justification for ignoring me is as ludicrous and laughable as the rest of your hyperbolic prose. It may surprise you, but just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make them ignorant. Of course I’m writing this for the benefit of others, since I’ve already been blacklisted for lack of revolutionary discipline, or something.
Back on topic which Adam Gall (no surprises here who has usual has shown no interest in except to left bash and/or support a losing gang member would any of the Pilger/Venezuelan anti-democrats here like to explain why the heck Chávez and his supporters have won 10 elections in eight years: victories achieved despite a private media largely controlled by opponents of the government?
Waiting…
Chavez is a very clever politician.
Chavez has delivered economic reforms that have benefited the voters. He spent oil money on lifting people out of poverty instead of returning it to foreign oil companies who would like to reinvest it in exploration, development and profit.
Chavez is a very clever politician.
Not a good analogy Adam Gall since the clever politician to whom you refer has won four elections with the support of the private (and public) media.
And really Darlene, while Adam is consumed with mirth, your response to jinmaro’s question is pretty lame, but I guess I’ll just have to see the movie for myself.
All in all its a bit sad to see so many otherwise perceptive (or so I thought) people buying into the myths of the corporate media, not to mention the debating techniques of the standard RWDB.
Trust the above provided you with further merriment, Adam.
Ah, we see the intricate depth of your argument right there Jinmaro. Lots of people voted for him therefore it’s not reasonable to discuss the degree of democracy of his rule, or the appropriatemess of Pilger’s treatment thereof.
Simply brilliant! You win AGAIN! Why does anyone bother going up against your obviously invincible arguments?
I acknowledge it’s not a perfect fit. I am gesturing to the idea that Howard is also democratically elected, and yet it is possible to disagree with him. I am also suggesting that Chavez is, after all, a politician who is part of the mainstream of politics in Venezuela and all that that entails. He is a populist with authoritarian tendencies, a charismatic leader who has sought a more permanent and powerful position than that befitting a genuine social democrat. This obviously plays well with much of the electorate, and more power to them if that’s what they are after. It doesn’t exempt him from criticism, and it is not simply a clear-cut case of Chavez = good, and you don’t have to take the standard MSM line to understand that. What is amazing is the extent to which Chavez own politically useful narratives about foreign relations are taken as gospel by some people here.
Sorry, adrian, I don’t find that funny at all. Maybe because it’s not full of ludicrous assertions and hyperbole.
I do think there’s been a bit of straw-manning in this thread, something along the lines of:
I would second the motion that very few people in this thread have said all that much about Chavez being a saint, etc.
I do think you were being unfair and sloppy when you said: “without canonising Chavez and exempting him from all criticism,” Kim. I can only see WBB’s post that could arguably be said to do that, but he’s certainly made reference to many facts, which you have also ignored.
Accusing anyone who thinks Pilger is a good journalist, or that many of his points are solid, as being part of some Green Left Weekly hivemind is cheap and tacky – both to people who love GLW, and people who don’t (like me).
To be honest, that kind of rhetorical tactic is better suited to Tim Blair’s site, than LP.
I have seen some pretty substantive posts with criticisms to Darlene’s original post, or some of the ideas therein, and the riposte’s have been, on the whole, three-line throwaways, with only a few exceptions (like Phil’s).
If you want to debate the nuts and bolts of whether Chavez is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, that’s all good and dandy, but it’s only an adjunct at best to what many people hear have posted, and you may not find that much disagreement.
The war between Chavez and the private television station RCTV has been long running. Neither side takes prisoners. It is a struggle for power. The niceities of democracy take second place when the gap between the two most powerful groups is so vast. This is not an argument about holiday pay and indexation of the minimum wage.
Chavez’s non renewal of RCTV’s broadcasting license should not be seen as mere government censorship of oppositional voices. It is less an attack on freedom of speech than an attack on a powerful political enemy. And one backed by foreign governments. Is it democratic – given the conditions? We can’t tell. Is it smart politically with Venezuelans? All we know is that it is not ideal when judging from Australia.
And I don’t believe RCTV’s behaviour during the coup would have gone unpunished in a democracy either if that’s not too hypothetically remote to get your head around.
In most countries there are not the viable legal avenues and the watchdog institutions that allow more subtle responses – whether your political instincts are democratic or not.
The criticism is Chavez should be building and developing the democratic fabric. And the criticism of the US and the old oil oligarchy which are lined up against Chavez is that they have nothing to offer Venezuelans except servitude.
This thread has become a good example of why Wedge Politics works so well, hasn’t it?
I was looking at a 2004 ABC interview with Pilger, in which Tony Jones keeps pushing and pushing Pilger to get him to say that he thinks the Iraqi insurgents are justified in attacking US (and therefore Australian) forces. Pilger says all violence is deplorable and keeps insisting that it was only “justified” from the insurgent’s perspective, but eventually Jones forces the quote out of Pilger’s mouth:
No room for nuance in these debates is there? With ‘em or against ‘em. Sigh.
“And I don’t believe RCTV’s behaviour during the coup would have gone unpunished in a democracy either if that’s not too hypothetically remote to get your head around.”
Agreed. Similar activities may well have brought similar actions on the part of governments just about anywhere. That is not necessarily a justification, of course.
For me, the fact that some aspects of democracy can be put aside as ‘niceties’ is disturbing whatever the rationale, and whatever the threat. That, for me, is not a reason to reject Chavez outright, or to support a coup, or to support the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty. But it is a reason to be wary, to be less than enthusiastic, to take the Chavez line with a grain of salt. That is, ultimately, the position that I would take, and in all fairness it probably isn’t that far from many of those who are nominally pro-Chavez.
You’re skating on thin ice, there, Adam! Jinmaro will probably accuse you of being a Bush apologist. Or something.
Maybe I didn’t help matters, but this thread has taken on quite a nasty tone. Can people not disagree without sledging others and imputing motives to them?
It’s against the LP Comments Policy and continuing to do it risks your ability to participate freely at this blog.
Of course, gandhi, but this is not the MSM. Nuance could still be possible here.
I think it is called working class consciousness and solidarity, Gandhi. You’ve either got it or you haven’t. And the key giveaway here is exclusive focus by Darlene et al on one man, (really rather patriachal of you all) rather than the class dynamics of the region; on a democratic process whose outcome is by no means assured, that needs encouraging and supporting, not thwarting or denying; and on the indispensable role of the Venezuelan people vis a vis Washington and neoliberalism in effecting the transformations in that country which have materially benefitted them already so much in the key areas of education, heathcare, employment, other social protections, etc.
As others have also said, the issue and difference here is fundamentally about democracy. A simple concept really, but difficult in the execution and damn hard for some to even get their heads around it would seem.
I think the era we have lived in for so long now means that many people can’t even recognise fledgling democracy when it exists or is coming into being, because they have never experienced or understood it and thus think it is always just some sort of cynical con. Just what the other sort of cons – neocons – want us all to believe.
I apologise for my part in that drift.
I apologise as well.
As a long time LP reader, I think that the general tone on this thread has been remarkably civilised and moderate, although quite critical in places. Which is quite different from ‘nasty’ I would have thought.
Geez, when I recall some of the stouches!
We don’t do stoushes any more, adrian!
More’s the pity!
You could always try
CatallaxyBird Central. One constant stoush. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, though.No, I’m never that desperate for a stoush.
Reminds me of a certain Monty Python sketch.
I would argue that, if you don’t find democracy a difficult concept to grapple with, you’re not doing it right.
Also, ‘working class consciousness and solidarity’ may have it’s own problems as a way of thinking potential alliances across the various global divisions. Once again, if it looks like a simple either/or, then the implied picture is not a pretty one.
As far as fledgling democracy goes, it strikes me as a situation with a lot of attendant possibilities and risks. Recognising that does not amount to a denial, but it doesn’t amount to simple support and encouragement either.
Except Monty Python was never so tragic.
It’s also a generational thing I reckon. The reverse is true now for us baby boomers: never politically trust a whitebread westerner under 35 (in the year 2007) especially not those who cut their philosophical teeth on post-modernism.
“does the sign of the Cross”.
Big with the generalisations that exclude large numbers of people on the basis of race and age? Gee, how democratic of you.
It was a joke. Lighten up Kim and try not to be so personal, eh wot!
Ok, sorry!
… and they all lived happily ever after.
Down and Out in Sai Gon said:
“Chavez reminds me a little bit of Mugabe – the younger Mugabe that stood up to Ian Smith and white-only rule in Zimbabwe. I bet he was also feted as a hero at the time.”
Indeed he was. In the early 80s, after assuming power, he made a lecture tour of Australia. There were reports in the press that he was going to impose a one party state in Zimbabwe. There were severe tensions between Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo based on tribal lines between Matabeles and Shonas.
After delivering a lecture at one of Melbourne’s august universities Mugabe took questions. He was asked whether it was true he intended to establish a one party state in Zimbabwe. Mugabe responded and this is pretty close to word for word:
“We are one nation; we are one people; why not one party?”
The most chilling aspect of this was the response. The packed house gave Mugabe a standing ovation for this overt declaration of his intention to impose tyranny in his country.
As long as he was anti-Smith, anti-white and anti-colonial, nothing else mattered. Zimbabwe is now a basketcase with its people in imminent danger of starvation.
Mugabe & Nkomo
Staying with the Zimbabwe case study for a moment: dictators seem to behave in characteristic ways, regardless of their claimed ideology. I suppose that’s why brighter minds than I study “totalitarianism”. So an early Chavez may well resemble an early Mugabe. Not yet matured in the cask…. to a ripe, yet aromatic flavour.
Someone pointed out to me recently, that while we had all watched TWO indigenous movements (Nkomo’s, Mugabe’s) fight to overthrow European rule in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, only a few years after victory, Mugabe’s forces eliminiated Nkomo’s forces. I recall that the word “massacre” was mentioned.
My tuppence (dos pesos) worth… Other voices from Latin America:
“Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot”, by Plinio Apuleyo MENDOZA, Carlos Alberto MONTANER & Alvaro Vargas LLOSA; Madison Books, 2000 & 2001
ISBN 1-56833-236-X
A critique from within Latin America, of the simplistic populist nonsense, the posturing, the victimhood thinking, which the authors believe has held back generations of Latin American intellectuals, politicians, economies and PEOPLE.
!hasta lluego!
Politics is a bitch isn’t it?
For the life of me I don’t know why more people aren’t Trotskyists. I mean, everyone sells out in the end, doncha think, just like the comrades say?
Look at Lula da Silva, Daniel Ortega, Tony Blair, Ken Livingstone, Gough Whitlam, Hawke and Keating, Gorbachev, Francois Mitterrand, the ANC, FSLN, July 26th Movement, need I go friggin’ on? Revolutionary leaders, social democrats, what the diff? They are all traitors-and-sell-outs-in-waiting and always will be, right? So what is the point of ever trying to change things or even think about something so dumb.
Get real! Rilly!
just cos ya wanna change things duzzen mean ya hafta bump people off, jinny
Traitors, anyone?
Years ago Max Teichmann told a good story about his Dad. They were driving past Trades Hall in Lygon Street, Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (etc).
His Dad said, “Traitors’ Hall!”
Chavez or no Chavez – I’m not expecting Venezuela to end up as a basket case like Zimbabwe. Two reasons:
1. Oil. While production is in decline there, the price is going gangbusters, and I expect it to increase. That’s going to get a lot of cash flowing into the country.
2. Venezuela doesn’t have murderous Africa-style “tribal” politics like Zimbabwe. Divisions are more along class lines.
Since this thread has become venezuela central ill throw in two cents I fished out of my pocket as i was reading it.
1 cent: Third way logic (or put another way as in some graffiti near my place, ‘neither
bush nor chavez’) is great logic when it is used to bust down left/right sterotypes. It is not
so great when it becomes a doctrine of its own. In the case of Chavez i think the problem is
more subtle.
To criticise more or less equally Bush and Chavez is perfectly defensible if we take the
international MSM as our data source. But what if this data is largely corrupted, false,
incomplete and naive? I think the neither Bush nor Chavez case is built on perception rather
than fact. That said, i also think there is, as of recently, enough reason to turn against
Chavez the man (personalising of Venezuelan politics is a mistake made by western
analysts as well as Chavez.) But its got nothing to do with RCTV, on which wbb is spot on.
2 cents: Chavez as a democrat? It partially boils down to a question of electoral democracy ( in
which he genuinely has few peers) and institutional democracy (in which he inhabits a very
murky area.) Some would argue that a committment to a third type of democracy (more
akin to participatory democracy, and a long term project) justifies Chavez’s loose hand with
democratic institutions (stacking of courts, undermining of seperation of powers etc) Im less
convinced then i used to be.
ah jeez
and that goes for uncritical mentions of Vargas Llosa and his book too. There are some perfect latin american idiots on his (imf style economic reform) side of the fence too.
Hah. Hah-Hah-Hah!
But, in my experience, ambigee, it is it is people like me that the status quo gatekeepers keep trying to bump off rather than the other way round. I think that is how most of history has worked too, now that I think of it. Oh well, worse things than being normal, I s’pose.
Graham, I thought it already was entangled w/ the Murdoch Empire…;) I tell ya, if the ABC National news’ teams focused their lasers on the Federal Govt. the way ABC Brisbane does on QLD Labor, King John & his mocking morons of the square table would be begging for the lights to be turned off.
I reckon Chavez land might transform into something fairly unique…they’ve got plenty of resources…& allies around the globe to ensure they don’t become another basket case. The Bolivarian revolution might collide w/ the American economic crunch & end up playing an essential role during the resistance to US imperialism, the Resource & Corporate Wars & adapting to Global warming. Plenty of valuable lessons to be learnt from Chinese, Russian & Cuban communism, negative & positive. I wouldn’t count them out yet. The World is in a spin right now & plenty of people are looking for alternative answers.
Remember ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ by Francis Fukuyama:
“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.” (quoted from “The End of History?”, 1989)
mG
The book is co-authored by three persons, one of whom is the son of failed Presidential candidate and novelist Mario Vargas Llosa. I just thought that a few persons visiting here might like to look at the book. Then again, some won’t: that’s fine. I find it interesting, that’s all. I tend to think Peruvians might have a better idea of what’s good for Peru, than (say) Australians, or United Statesians, or Antarcican penguins for that matter.
If you’ve read it, you could tell us what you thought of it. I forgot to mention: the book is intended to be humorous = LOL
hasta lluego, amigo/amiga
This is an interesting read that outlines some of the policies & measures used/experimented w/ by the Venezuelan government…& the progenitors & origins these policies are modelled on:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/082506_latin_tapeworm.shtml
(LATIN AMERICA DECONSTRUCTS THE TAPEWORM: LESSONS FOR FINANCIALLY-DRAINED AMERICANS by Carolyn Baker, Ph.D. – 2006, From The Wilderness Publications)
Down & Out
So you think the divides along Spanish-descent/indigenous descent, or between regions, are less important in Venezuela than class divisions? You may be right. I’d say that in Peru and Bolivia, Spanish “cosmopolitans” vs Indians is a BIG divide. Not saying there aren’t leaders who try to bridge the gaps.
muchas gracias
* AntarcTican *
apologies to los pinguinos del sur, hope they’re not dastardly revolutionaries
“just cos ya wanna change things duzzen mean ya hafta bump people off, jinny”
Damn straight.
I have no doubt that the indigenous people get a hard time in Venezuela – get even killed. What I don’t expect there is what the Fifth Brigade did to the Ndebele. I don’t see Chavez doing anything that homicidal really, to his credit. But I’m still cautious about the man.
Chávez is Indigenous which must, one presumes, have contributed to the whitebread western hostility to him evidenced once more by the pretty much content-less attacks on him by commenters on this thread.
The free, privately-owned anti-Chavez media in Venezuela, and in the US, have regularly depicted the ‘Indian’ Chávez as a monkey. And in 2004, a racist anti-Chávez puppet show held in the US embassy caused such an outrage in LA Colin Powell was forced to issue an apology. And so it goes.
Chávez is Indigenous which must, one presumes, have contributed to the whitebread western hostility to him evidenced once more by the pretty much content-less attacks on him by commenters on this thread.
And why does one presume that? I’m curious as to your reasoning.
The MSM treatment of Chavez is pretty dreadful, that is for sure. There is a bit about today,for instance, where he is characterised as eccentric and cuckoo for merely introducing daylight saving. Even from The Independent…
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2984796.ece
Racial hatred runs deep. Just look at the current situation for Indigenous people in Australia, or any other country with Indigenous people, and you will get your answer.
Chavez is, as well as a populist, democratic leaning nationalist, an Indigenous head of government in a strategically important and oil-rich country. If you think racism is not involved or being utilised in the opposition to his government, including from white liberals and the MSM in the West, you are missing something terribly important.
Chavez is, as well as a populist, democratic leaning nationalist, an Indigenous head of government in a strategically important and oil-rich country. If you think racism is not involved or being utilised in the opposition to his government, including from white liberals and the MSM in the West, you are missing something terribly important.
I have no doubt that racism is involved in a lot of opposition to Chavez… but we’re talking about LP here. I think you’re crossing the line by imputing racism to other commenters on this thread. Can you think of specific examples, or are you just being grumpy today?
Well, a wee bit grumpy and no I can’t prove this. Many things cannot be proved. But as I said, racism runs deeps and most bloggers here are from Qld, my home state, so I know a bit about their mind set. And I am not totally whitebread so have a sort of vested interest and particular perspective on all this.
Your two cents are much appreciated, mG. Thoughtful and considered.
I don’t know if I’d criticise Chavez and Bush on roughly equal terms. Bush, or rather that which he represents, is truly monstrous, whereas Chavez is only potentially so. Same thing with the Mugabe comparison, really. It is too much to assume that Chavez is simply a proto-Mugabe.
The leap is not a huge one to make given the significant way in which race infuses settler thought in this country, but I think it is a case of misrecognition. This is not to deny that some criticism of Chavez emerges from racism etc.
Quite right. George Bush is not into jailing trade union leaders because they take strike action against his government. Nor has the Democratic Party boycotted any Congressional elections. Nor has George Bush changed the US Constitution to allow himself a longer term in office, etc. etc. etc.
You would be hard pressed to prove “racism” on the evidence from this thread, jinmaro Even qld bias. These things are often a little hard to pin down from bread type consumption. For the record, rye or wholegrain.
But getting back on topic, a little, ‘pilgism’ (not pilgerism) may be around. His very existence seems to get up peoples’ noses. I always find this strange because he questions basic assumptions and is thus brain food , writes quite well and is polite….. if people do not treat him like a leper.
If anybody is interested in hearing him speak just yesterday on radio, the mp3, is available below. Boring Warning: you will hear Jon Faine and Terry Lane talk about their health for about 10 mins, first.
http://www.abc.net.au/melbourne/stories/s2039943.htm?melbourne
L. Tiptop Whitebread III – ah the Klu Klux Klan joins us. LOL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
That’s coming very close to being offensive, jinmaro, and I suspect you weren’t entirely joking at all with your “don’t trust anyone white and postmodern under 35″ line. For someone who kicks the democracy can a lot, you certainly do have the habit of making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about the thinking and motivations of your interlocutors.
And you don’t get a free pass when you’re being rude by adding “LOL” at the end of your comment.
You would be hard pressed to prove “racism” on the evidence from this thread, jinmaro. Even qld bias. These things are often a little hard to pin down from bread type consumption. For the record, ‘rye’ or ‘wholegrain’ in my case.
But getting back on topic, a little, ‘pilgism’ (not pilgerism) may be around. His very existence seems to get up peoples’ noses. I always find this strange because he questions basic assumptions and is thus brain food , writes quite well and is polite….. if people do not treat him like a leper.
If anybody is interested in hearing him speak just yesterday on radio, the mp3, is available below. Boring Warning: you will hear Jon Faine and Terry Lane talk about their health for about 10 mins, first.
http://www.abc.net.au/melbourne/stories/s2039943.htm?melbourne
And as to your banging on about “whitebread” and your claim that opposition to Chavez (not that I’m necessarily opposed to him – I just think your claims are wrong and that it’s not an either/or with Bush) is somehow racist, and the consequent insinuation that those who don’t agree with you are racist, I think, to be quite frank that’s intellectually bereft. It’s about as valuable as GregM’s trite argument from the other side of the spectrum that none of us can comment about Vietnam because we’re “from a rich country”.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/20/la-police-search-for-pumpkins-father/#comment-405380
Frankly, you know nothing about the people you are talking with, for a start. Most people here are not from Queensland.
Secondly, FWIW, if you wish to toss epithets like “whitebread” around and claim a morally superior position because you’re not, then please be informed that I had a Portuguese mother and an American father and my mother’s family are Marranos. If you don’t know what that means, then this may enlighten you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#Marranos
I have also lived outside the first world.
However, I am 34, so you presumably distrust all this.
None of what I am saying is pertinent to my opinion of your arguments, your debating tactics or Chavez. The claim that some people have a greater right to speak or more insight because of their identity or provenance is always a very dangerous one to make, but it appears to pervade most of your comments. Someone actually from Latin America might have some more insight, but the only person who is here you scoffed at and abused.
I would point out to you, politely, that the comments policy at LP, to which I’ve already drawn attention on this thread, explicitly forbids people from imputing motives to other commenters or stereotyping them according to perceived group membership or identity. You, it seems to me, constantly breach that. I’d suggest that you confine yourself strictly to the arguments and cease to personalise your comments if you wish to continue participating on this blog in an unimpeded manner. If you don’t wish to accept the rules we lay down for discussion on this blog, that’s your prerogative, but it may result in our deciding that we don’t wish to host your comments here. It’s a big internet, and I’m sure you can find somewhere more congenial if you’re incapable of or unwilling to comment civilly.
well, as said, I can’t prove racism. But the unchallenged comments of racists on LP as Laura pointed to recently are noteworthy, particularly when it is Aboriginal people and women who continually get slapped down by the likes of LP blogger Kim.
But you did that on the basis of the false and redbaiting supposition that I and others were from “the Green Left crew”. I have disclosed several times that I am Aboriginal, but you continue to treat me with contempt. Why?
No idea what you are on about, jinmaro, and your opinion of this site is irrelevant. If you don’t like it, go away. You add very little with your judgemental crap and if you want to claim that I “slap down” Indigenous people and women you could at least point to some evidence of that. But, really, I’m not interested in discussing you and your views of me and others here any further.
I’m in Victoria and just love having a brain not affected by to much UV,
Read all your stuff Kim from QLD and love it.
I have never read a comment where you’ve said that. You’d be making a big mistake if you thought I read everything on this blog. Nor do I “treat you with contempt”. You constantly accuse others of all sorts of things and jump to offensive conclusions. You don’t have any particular right to be rude and offensive here no matter who you are. I’ve tried to be as patient with you as I can, but quite frankly, your comments appear designed to insult and provoke anger. I am not, I repeat, interested in discussing this further unless you can bring yourself to apologise to me for your wholly unwarranted accusation that I have treated you in a certain way because of your race. That was never my intention and your accusation is highly offensive and completely without foundation.
As to my alleged “redbaiting”, I was making an analogy between your apparent inability to see that any criticism of Chavez is not akin to support for Bush and the typical lionisation that he gets from that mob.
Now, I think you owe me an apology. And while you’re at it, you might like to give Liam one for suggesting that he’s in the KKK.
Thanks, sandy.
Look, honestly, it’s not my intention to offend jinmaro but I find her accusations against me and others really distasteful and hurtful.
I think this thread could benefit from a spell of cooling down, and if anyone wants to discuss the substantive issues, we can come back to it tomorrow.
It is tomorrow now, I believe.
The Pilger quote at top of this thread sums it up. jinmaro sees the con in democracy. She sees what lies behind the political narrative most of the rest of us have been fed since we were born.
Sure democracy is good. But it ain’t necessary or possible in many places. Not yet. In some places the the battle to obtain the pre-conditions to build and live in a democracy is still being waged.
Therefore it can come across as a touch churlish to be super-critical at great remove of people like Chavez who in like circumstances we’d most probably be inclined to support.
Nevertheless we should, from our great remove, be able to academically discuss his shortcomings- but unless we do that with some grace, we risk pissing off others who feel wedded to that distant struggle through some imagined or real link.
And once someone is pissed off and they strike out, we all end up pissed off. It’s the achilles heel of blogs. Taking each other’s crap to heart.
Pity to see that Mark has been sucked into the good Bachelet bad Chavez discourse.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6057
chavez should be condemned for not letting the crypto-fascist Right-wing elite walk all over him. He should play nice like Allende, so we can admire his martyrdom and fume indignantly at his overthrow.
I’m not sure what that article has to do with me, yeti, unless it’s just an illustration of the “good Bachelet bad Chavez discourse”. I’m not saying “Bachelet good Chavez bad” just that I don’t think he’s a social democrat and she is. Some of what he’s doing is good, as I said earlier on this thread, but I’m troubled by the anti-democratic nature of some of what he’s done. I also don’t think that lining people up and giving them ticks as bad or good does anything for political debate on the left or elsewhere.
Pilger’s major weakness is that he is never explicit about what democracy would look like if he found somewhere an acceptable democracy.
Some may argue that Pilger is acting as a gadfly inviting other people to contemplate the nature and form of their own commitments to ideals such as democracy, human rights, etc.
I would argue that, in fact, Pilger is often quite disingenuous about the purposes of his exposés of nefarious practices. Pilger usually depicts these practices as manating from the centres of government and corporate power in the US. If this is the case, then his primary function should be to attempt to convince US voters and stockholders to act appropriately in the world. Pilger doesn’t do this very often.
Instead, Pilger usually directs his rhetoric towards third parties who are neither the victims themselves nor the people who have the ability most directly to put a stop to abuses.
Thus, Pilger is most often engaged in composing yet another hymn of moral outrage for the benefit of concerned lefty folk who are already in the choir. This is a tired effort which eschews an ooportunity for Pilger to do good, as he sees it, in the world.
If a social democrat is somebody who thinks the State has a role in the re-distribution of economic power, then Bachelet is not a social democrat and Chavez is.
I don’t think that’s the totality of the definition, yeti, but it’s not a debate I’m particularly interested in getting into – first, because it’s Sunday and I’ve got other things to do, and secondly, because I’m not confident I know enough about the politics of either nation.
Katz commented -”Pilger’s major weakness is that he is never explicit about what democracy would look like if he found somewhere an acceptable democracy”
Taken from his website the following discussion about globalisation might give a few ideas.
“Globalisation: New Rulers of the World
Seven Solutions ( to globalisation )
Put people first – World Trade Organisation ‘liberalisation’ agreements such as GATS and TRIPS have been a disaster for most of the world’s population. The WTO should be abolished, and a democratic body established by and with the approval of all members of the United Nations General Assembly.
Restore national control over development – Countries must be allowed to determine their own development paths, free from the ideological interference of the IMF and World Bank. Countries must be allowed to make performance requirements of multinationals investing in their territories.
End protectionism in the world’s richest countries – The tariff barriers which block developing country exports to the markets of the rich world must be removed, and targeted support provided to workers in industrialised countries who are affected by the change. There needs to be fundamental reform of agricultural systems, with the aim of making food supply fairer to farmers in the Third World, as well as safer and more sustainable. In particular, European and US governments must end the agricultural subsidies which give their farmers an unfair advantage over producers in the developing world.
Give priority to the poor – The rules of globalisation should make more provision for the special needs of the world’s poorest countries. The European Union’s first step in promising duty-free access to exports from the 48 least developed countries should be extended to more countries and matched by all rich nations.
Make multinationals accountable – The legal notion that companies have the same human rights as people should be abandoned. Companies have globalised, but the rules regulating their activities haven’t. UN agreements contain sound rules on workers’ rights, human rights, consumer protection, indigenous peoples and the environment. But there is no means for consistent enforcement of these standards. There should be a new international mechanism to regulate the activities of all multinationals across the world, with government enforcement supported by independent monitoring to ensure that they abide by it.
Build democratic space for genuine debate – All decisions at the IMF and World Bank are taken on the basis of ‘one dollar one vote’, which guarantees the world’s richest countries an inbuilt majority. A genuine debate must exclude the assumption that these institutions, like their sponsor, the US Treasury, have an authentic interest in reducing poverty. They have no such interest; on the contrary, their policies demonstrably increase poverty.
Regulate capital markets – Financial markets must be regulated to ensure that they are stripped of their ideological power.”
Make of this list what you will but I’d say it has been tried and failed.
More mega beaurocracies of the type developed on the basis of every country is equal don’t have an enviable record and yet he wants them to undertake more massive tasks than have ever been tried.
The last point is a doozy – no suggestion is made as to how to achieve this but by some people being at one end of a rifle seems pausible.
The link-http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=136
“Iâ??m not sure what that article has to do with me, yeti, unless itâ??s just an illustration of the â??good Bachelet bad Chavez discourseâ??. Iâ??m not saying â??Bachelet good Chavez badâ?? just that I donâ??t think heâ??s a social democrat and she is. Some of what heâ??s doing is good, as I said earlier on this thread, but Iâ??m troubled by the anti-democratic nature of some of what heâ??s done. I also donâ??t think that lining people up and giving them ticks as bad or good does anything for political debate on the left or elsewhere.”
That comment sums up things well, I think.
There appears to have been some argy-bargy on this post while I have been in my sick bed. While I think this thread has run its course, it’d be appreciated if people could refrain from engaging in personal attacks if they want to keep making comments on it.
Pilger is making a doco about US intervention in Latin America. The campaign against Chavez is about as representative a campaign against popular democracy as you’ll ever find anywhere. We hear plenty of criticism of Chavez from the MSM, a very small part legitimate and the larger part just slanderous rubbish. Unfortunately a lot of this rubbish has been absorbed by people on the ‘left’ here, who somehow think that Chavez is an autocrat endangering Venezuelan democracy and that there is a need to criticise Chavez (in a film about US intervention) for ‘balance’.
Maybe from a PoMo point of view it is ‘anachronistic’ to take sides in a burning political conflict between a hugely popular social-democratic regime and its crypto-fascist ruling-class opposition? If one day Pilger does make a doco specifically about the Bolivarian Revolution I expect it will have plenty of criticism about Chavez being too conservative.
All that may be so, yeti, but I’m unimpressed by the willingness of many to engage in making political judgements without the necessary understanding. No doubt much of what is written about Chavez is deeply biased, but the bias appears to run both ways, which I think is highly unfortunate.
engage in making political judgements without the necessary understanding.
Any examples?
I think there are a lot of examples on this thread from both sides of the argument but I don’t want to single anyone out. It’s possible to comment intelligently on British politics and American politics for most of us because we have a surfeit of information available and a lot of cultural context. I would refrain from writing a post on New Zealand politics (let alone Latin American politics) simply because there’s little coverage generally in the press and on tv and unless you really make a study of it and in particular attempt to find relatively unbiased information it’s difficult to comment intelligently. The same with, say, French politics – where many of us may feel we know something of the actors and the history, I dare say a spell of living in France would reveal much ignorance. Precisely because our understanding is limited, it’s much more difficult to discern what bias particular sources may have, and then there’s the additional problem with the politics of non-English speaking countries that much (if not most) of what may inform a genuine understanding is written in another language. I’d be most reluctant, for instance, to express an opinion on the politics of Timor Leste because almost everything in the Australian media is uninformed and/or biassed. There are some “informants” who’ve had a long connection with or are from Timor Leste whose writing I would respect, more so to the degree that it sought to inform as well as persuade. But with Latin American politics, I suspect there are very few people writing in the Australian media or blogosphere who have the requisite knowledge and experience.
I think, in general, a degree of intellectual humility wouldn’t go astray.
Perhaps that’s why this thread got so nasty and angsty – because people are projecting all sorts of political feelings onto something which is so little understood that the adoption of default debating positions is accentuated.
Generally speaking, such discussions are almost entirely useless for anyone who seeks to improve their stock of knowledge – though they may be useful for those who wish to score points, or bolster their identities in some way by claiming a purist position.
But I think most of this thread has been almost entirely a complete waste of time because no one really knows what they’re talking about, and I’ve found the degree of ill will expressed here quite disturbing. It’s the sort of thread that really makes me question why I bother with blogging and commenting on threads at all. It’s also indicative in that people were prepared to show little or no respect not just for their interlocutors but also for the content of the post and its author – all it purports to be is a film review.
It becomes very frustrating for bloggers who write posts – for no particular reward – when comments threads are unresponsive to the post and people are keen seemingly only to take the opportunity to score points and to indulge themselves.
As a final word, to speak quite frankly, I think people should take a good look at the degree to which failure to restrain emotional responses in heated discussions damages everyone concerned. It is not too difficult to conduct a civil and civilised discussion, but the level of self-restraint and maturity necessary for some people to do so seems in short supply in the blogosphere. It would be much better for almost everyone if people made more of a genuine effort to avoid the pointless satisfaction that may result from thinking that you’re “winning” and to write with a desire to engage.
The inability of some people to ever concede a point and to apologise when it’s been pointed out to them that they’ve given deep offence to others is also depressing. Combined with the attack of the wingnuts on Phil’s post, this thread has really led to some questioning and rethinking about the point of all this as far as I’m concerned.
Oh, I don’t know, Mark. It’s not an academic colloquium, it’s the blogosphere.
Pilger’s a divisive character about whom many people feel strongly, one way or another. That’s reflected in the sturm and drang on this thread. Nothing wrong with that that I can see.
Rob, though academic colloquia can also be full of egotistical self indulgence and pointless point scoring, people don’t often get accused of being KKK supporters or racists because they live in Queensland at such events in my experience.
Maybe it’s just life, then.
Horrible, isn’t it?
And Liam doesn’t even live in QLD. I see him as more a John Birch Society type, myself.
Don’t get so upset Mark, this is the whole promise of the blogosphere. I think it is a wonderful thing that people put so much time, effort and passion into discussing issues like this with a bunch of strangers. A bit of immaturity here and there is a small and unavoidable price to pay for admission to this online intellectual world which didn’t exist a mere fifteen years ago. I’ve found that the most controversial threads on blogs are the often the ones that are the most thought provoking and educational, challenging us to go out and really learn about an issue to work it out for ourselves. Sometimes a thread will attract trolling campaigns, but just considering the fact that a bunch of wingnuts would sacrifice time and effort to bombard a thread should be an honour, proving that it is a blog of note. Once a blog stops attracting people willing to argue with each other it is in decline. I just discovered LP a couple of weeks back and I think it’s wonderful, I want to thank you for setting up this valuable forum, and I’m delighted to know it comes out of my hometown!
I think people who have lived long enough and been interested in politics for most of their life, including in this instance, LA – one of the most important spheres internationally – in fact know a hell of lot and don’t really appreciate being told they don’t by some blogmaster or mistress arbiter of such things. Many people, and this thread proved it, do have a lot of accumulated learned history, experience and understanding to draw on when assessing contemporary political developments and media products, whether they were born in or have ever visited this region or are specialist historians or not.
My father always told me when I was unable to speak in public for so long that I would be able to do so when I earned the right to speak about something I knew about. And he was right and I now can. It is an important, lession for many girls and I am glad I had a man to teach it to me and I don’t appreciate, as a mature women in her prime now, having a younger, higher educated, white man I have never met tell me I don’t.
The debate was truncated because some of the initial responses produced the sort of unsubstantiated dismissive one-liners about Pilger and Chavez which predictably led to what often eventuates on many blog discussions: a desultory, increasingly illogical toing and froing from people not really wanting to engage, just score points: e.g by dismissing people who take a different, open view, as ignorant, western dudes or commies who viewed Chavez uncritically. But no one ever did that, or was that, and as well as insulting to accuse people of ignorance it is rather oneeyed when the accusers themselves are, from others perspective, lacking knowledge of important facts. This is the reason I too am often not interested in blogging so much, because the sum total of discussion often seems less than its constituent parts in the end. And who needs the aggravation?
Nevertheless, many things are also in the eye of the beholder and we all bring a lot that is incommunicable to any piece of writing, and in blog debate. And I would say I learnt some very useful facts and interpretations from people who made thoughtful comments about Pilger and his work and on the subject of this documentary – including from wbb, gandhi, yeti, Adrian, joe2, Enemy Combatant, and Down & Out in Sai Gon, and its probably those not atypical gems of thought and insight and perspective that keep people like me perusing blogs to the extent we do, despite the posturing, provocative debating techniques and personal antipathies that they so often engender.
What yeti said!
Thanks, yeti, I appreciate all that very much, but sometimes it feels like a bit of a chore and a thankless task maintaining it.
BoredinHK, thank you for pointing out Pilger’s website.
A website, of course, has nothing to do with the content and structure of Pilger’s documentaries, which are clearly designed to stand alone as presentations of a case.
Pilger’s thoughts on terminating globalisation may well be interesting in themselves, but his policies on this important topic would appear, in Pilger’s mind, to rely on the achievement of democracy in important countries, notably the US and the First World.
In other words, the termination of globalisation would be seen by Pilger to be a result of the rise of democracy, not the cause of the rise of democracy.
I therefore repeat my point that Pilger’s docos are never explicit about what democracy may look like, were it to be the organising principle of world politics.
Jinmaro, this is indicative of your habit of taking things too personally. I specifically said in my comment that my view was that few of us on this thread had the capacity to speak with authority and understanding about Venezuela, but I also said I wasn’t singling anyone out, and I was careful not to say that the comment extended to everyone on this thread.
What concerns me about your participation in this debate is that you have the propensity of imputing motives and views to others. There was no need for you to insinuate that people who are from Queensland are racists, and to suggest that Liam is some sort of KKK sympathiser is far outside the bounds of any sort of civility in discourse. I believe that you ought to apologise for both those remarks. As someone who has worked very closely with Indigenous people in Queensland in their struggles, I find the accusation completely unfounded and hurtful.
It wasn’t directed at me personally, but this only goes to reinforce the point that you should not be making accusations that apply to a group of people with no basis, perhaps knowing that it would be highly offensive.
An apology really isn’t that difficult, and if you had no ill intent in making that comment, I’m sure you’d be happy to make one.
an absurd statement jinmaro. I’m from QLD & find it insulting…& as someone who provided a link to a paper that discusses some of the socio-economic models used by the Chavez Govt. including ‘participatory budgeting’ & made various other comments that did not lead to any follow on comments whatsoever (apart from a Courier Mail related side issue) you don’t see me accusing the LP Collective of bias. Nor do I believe you ignored my comments because you might perceive me as being a ‘white, male from QLD’. That would just be silly thinking on my part.
You have to take the positive w/ the negative jinmaro & just swallow the fact some don’t agree w/ some of your points. Using emotional blackmail & ‘victimisation’ strategies is just not on. It just makes you come across as either petulant…or an ‘extreme right-wing sleeper’ stirring up sh*t & attempting to knock LP and diminish the reputation of the blog & QLD Greenies in the run up to the election.
Personally, i thought there were some interesting POVs & facts expressed on this thread. Don’t give up Mark. I often enjoy reading thru your insightful posts. These are heated political times and threads are bound to get derailed now & then. Don’t let the ‘overly sensitive’ & Machiavellian types get ya down. We’re almost at the finish line…don’t stumble now.
Well, I was the only one blackbanned, and tongue-lashed Mark, so I did tend to take your latest comments personally. Wouldn’t you?
But, ok, I am sorry Mark, and Kim, and Liam and apologise.
The “here comes the KKK” and Qlders are all racists comments were a deliberate provocation from a rude, know-how-to-get-your-goat Queenslander living in NSW. I admit it. But it was also a joke and really only reflected badly on me. No? Leaden and silly too. And of course I don’t for the moment think “Liam” (who ever he is, don’t have a clue) is KKK or you or Kim or other Qld based LP bloggers. I have learnt a lot from your posts Mark in the five months or so I have been reading LP even though I often disagree and have very different ways of thinking about many things fundamental to me. But heh, that’s what makes us human and such an interesting, wayward, creative species don’t you think?
I think we could all takes ourselves less seriously, too, and here I have to agree with Rob. Just how to reliably engineer that on an hourly basis, jeez, I don’t know Mark. I guess we are all still working on that. Jokes can help diffuse, but one person’s joke is another’s dastardly frontal attack, so it’s not that simple either, eh, bro?
I couldn’t agree more w/ this comment from Mark. I reckon the Chavez govt. has potential but could fall into the same ‘over-reacting’ to meddling ‘American Imperialism’ trap that Cuba has. Both Countries have made some significant gains in attempting to create a ‘trickle down effect’ & redistributing assets but have on occasion restricted civil rights & freedom of speech to the point they should be condemned for some of their actions & policies.
“And I would say I learnt some very useful facts and interpretations from people who made thoughtful comments about Pilger and his work and on the subject of this documentary – including from wbb, gandhi, yeti, Adrian, joe2, Enemy Combatant, and Down & Out in Sai Gon, and its probably those not atypical gems of thought and insight and perspective that keep people like me perusing blogs to the extent we do”
jinmaro, a comment i do agree with…good to see gandhi still flying the flag for justice & fairness…and kickin’ rampant capitalist & American imperialist butt…:)
All I know is that LP is well regarded and is much appreciated by many people. It would be a shame to see it go the way of Ozpolitics. It is quite unique in the Australian blogosphere for the variety of its prolific output and quality of thought and argument which is consistently offered with a mix of intellect and passion as well as a regular dose of humour and levity. Mark and Kim (Liam and Phil too) and all the other bloggers on this collective known as LP – we think your contributions on this site are invaluable. Indeed our days are often punctuated with quick visits (especially me with my thesis avoidance issues). If you are feeling over it tonight, then just remember there are many more people who value and admire your work than there are people who are willing to devalue it.
I haven’t seen the documentary and don’t really intend to. I gave up on Pilger when it seemed he was determined to argue that every action the US ever took was motivated entirely by the interests of the wealthy and that even if they did something good it was bu accident. Perhaps he has mellowed, or perhaps I misunderstood him back then, but neither reviews like this one, nor the arguments of his defenders inspire much confidence.
One of the problems with such a position is that it means there is no distinction at all between different US presidents. Clinton is as bad as Bush, who is no better than Carter, Kennedy or Roosevelt.
It’s not just an intellectually vacuous position, it also removes any prospects of reform short of total revolution.
Me too, years ago. But as someone said earlier, he knows his audience. Phillip Knightly is much better value – intelligent and nuanced.
Hey, jinmaro1, do you have a blog or are thinking about it? It would be great to hear your stuff, in your own way. I am not sure, but there do not seem to be any aboriginal women bloggers with a site doing a political thing. Anyway, congrats on the apology, most brave. Apology from me for all the shite that my white ancestors have brought to yours.
“It’s not just an intellectually vacuous position, it also removes any prospects of reform short of total revolution.”
So is he a maoist – Year Zero anyone ?
Not at all appealing or engaging.
I wouldn’t let it get you too down, Mark. Not everyone can the best of themselves every time.
There’s been some argy bargy on this thread, to be sure, but there’s been some argy bargy on a tonne of threads, and you haven’t thrown the towel in yet, dude!
Personally, I like Phil’s take no prisoner approach to maintaining threads. If you think the comment is not cool, just cut the bugger. That’s the advantage of blogging, you don’t need the ratings.
There certainly has been some opinion polarisation, and some if not uninformed, at least ill informed comments. But that’s blogging isn’t it? It holds true for posts just as well for comments, and presents everyone with an opportunity to educate themselves, which I think has largely happened on this thread. I think it’s been a good one, with some very interesting and valuable comments indeed.
Thank you very much, Liliana, indeed. And of course, LP started as thesis avoidance for me!
And thank you nasking too. I deeply appreciate that.
Unfortunately they don’t always come across in text in these sorts of forums, Jinmaro! Thank you also very much for your kind apology. These debates can sometimes get a little passionate, but it’s always wise to remember there’s another person on the other side of the comments box and not just a political position. I’m sure I’m guilty of forgetting that sometimes too, but a little forethought and a bit of generosity towards your interlocutors goes a long way to reminding us.
It’s the sort of thread that really makes me question why I bother with blogging and commenting on threads at all. It’s also indicative in that people were prepared to show little or no respect not just for their interlocutors but also for the content of the post and its author – all it purports to be is a film review.
Mark: that gave me a sinking feeling – it sounded like your were leading up to throw in the towel. Please don’t. Larvatus Prodeo is a rarity of a blog: multiple conversational threads going off at once, most threads lasting for days, generally high signal to noise ratios, nice nifty navigation, and nuanced yet interesting subject matter. Do you know how rare it is to find all five features at once? Especially the “conversational” part? Even the Americans don’t have it that good, and I’ve seen a lot of their stuff. 183-comment flamewars between the left and the right, starting with the inevitable “Frist”.
This blog is a natural treasure. Fuckin’ oath.
(As for the drive-by trolls – I wonder if you ever thought about disemvowelling? Don’t remove the posts – remove the vowels. “Stpd, dmb, gnrnt Lfts. lwys prjctng thr wn wknsss nt thr ppnnts. Dmb, dmb, dmb nd s ncrdbly prdctbl”, to pick an example.)
Bored In HK:
Thanks for that list of John Pilger’s 7 points/suggestions for a better world [makes more sense than Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points].
Kim:
[slightly away from the topic]
Yes. I know what Maranos are [though not Jewish at all myself]; just mildly surprised to see that long-forgotten name turn up on LP. Thanks for the Wikipedia link which filled in a few gaps in my knowledge …. and raised a few questions too.
Feral Sparrowhawk, you said
Errrr. You might find there are quite a few 110% patriotic, red-blooded Americans who agree with Mr Pilger’s approach and attitudes on this too.
Is John Pilger a lesbian?
And thanks very much to you too, Down and Out!
Hah! We have another secret weapon in planning!
Now that things have settled down, I’d just say that while some people like a stoush I think more hate it. There’s no doubt, I think, that it inhibits participation. I think we learn more and get further if the mode is respectful conversation.
I do think Paul Walter should apologise to Darlene. If he did, I missed it.
On the subject of the post I googled around a bit and a post by Liam last year on Chavez. I cite it as an example of robust but I think civilised discussion.
I also found another review of the Pilger film. This comment is particularly interesting:
It’s an interesting point. I don’t think it can be easily dismissed by saying that Pilger doesn’t let the truth get in the way of the story he wants to tell. Perhaps the coherence and power was necessary to tell the truth he wanted to tell.
I’ve been reading articles on Venezuala as I come upon them for a couple of years now and would like to share this one by Julia Buxton, termed by CaracasChronicler in one of the comments as
Buxton finds political empowerment and participatory democracy bursting out all over. Bolvarian democracy is different.
But then go down to the fifth comment, by CaracasChronicler, and you get a different view. She(?) quotes the Stockholm syndrome and says:
The argument rages to and fro down to the last comment, which is headed “Why you lie so much?”
I’m interested in what Chavez seems to be trying to do, but the latest signs are not good. I can’t find the article, but I read one that seemed to speak from observation that there was corruption and nepotism in the regime from top to bottom. I also heard that from a BBC program where the interviewer talked to people who were supposed to receive assistance but it got diverted at the last step.
It’s also a worry if you feel you are so important to the country that you have to be able to be president for life.
Then there was a recent article that said that hyperinflation had begun. How will the poor fare then?
But like Mark, I don’t really know enough to have a settled view. So I’ll just maintain an interest from afar.
Sorry for such a long comment. It took me longer to write than it took you to read!
agree Brian, even tho i have a natural predilection for anyone who stands up on global stage and gives cowboys like Bush the middle finger…:
“The devil came here yesterday,” Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. “And it smells of sulfur still today.”
Chavez accused Bush of having spoken “as if he owned the world” and said a psychiatrist could be called to analyze the statement. (Watch Hugo Chavez cross himself as he tells world leaders he can smell the devil )
“As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: ‘The Devil’s Recipe.’ ”
Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on imperialism and said it encapsulated his arguments: “The American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow him to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.”
(Chavez: Bush ‘devil’; U.S. ‘on the way down’, POSTED on CNN .com: September 21, 2006)
…i still have a problem w/ Presidents shutting down TV stations, regardless of their bias & BS. As far as i’m concerned, if we can’t dance w/ the likes of Fox ‘blut und boden’ News & such (“dance with the devil by the pale moonlight”) and via rational, passionate & imaginative discourse & demonstrations show them up for the frauds & war-mongers they are, but instead resort to ‘pitchforks and torches’ diplomacy, we might as well pack up our good intentions, put on the mask of Robespierre & slice & dice a Danton or two…& scream in the nightmare of our own red death.
N’
Thanks Brian. A very interesting and considered appraisal.
One of Chavez’ innovations was to do a barter trade on a state basis. Firstly there was the trade with Cuba were oil was exchanged for doctors and dentists to provide health services to the poor. Then he traded oil for wheat with Argentina. I think there have been others.
This cut the capitalists out of the game, which is anathema to the US.
I think wbb made the point that the TV station had been a political actor in the coup attempt and continued in a totally rabid fashion. I can see Chavez’ logic that the media and the unionists in the oil industry, who had aligned themselves with the multinationals, were operating not just as an opposition within the state, but against the form of polity he was creating.
But acting rationally is not always acting wisely. Also reason can become a form of rationalisation.
I understand the corruption was not perpetrated by Chavez himself but by people powerful within his camp. They too are acting against the polity he is ostensibly creating, but he seems unable or unwilling to do anything about them.
Then his hatred of Bush has led him into making some very strange ‘friendships’ with other leaders, like the bloke in Iran where Chavez defended his right to go nuclear.
‘But acting rationally is not always acting wisely. Also reason can become a form of rationalisation.’
I think this is a very important point and it goes to the heart of what I am uncomfortable about in that I understand the array of forces aligned against the Chavez project, and I think they require a strong response in order to preserve what is good about that project, but the way in which those responses have emerged seems to be part of a drift towards something more sinister.
Thanks, Adam, I agree. I was framing another comment, but accidentally wiped it. Have to go now. Maybe I’ll get back to it tonight, but the bottom line is two-fold.
Is what Chavez doing of merit within Venezuela where the interests seem to be irreconcilable? Will the misiones, for example, lead to genuine participative democracy, or ultimately a playground for a new elite?
If so, is it possible to establish an alternative political economy that can survive and interface with the rest of the world?
A third one is whether Venezuela will end up in the Chinese orbit to maintain external investment? Chavez has arguably gotten as far as he has because of American distraction in the Middle East. One would think that any and all necessary means would be used (and justified rationally) if he sought Chinese patronage.
It’s more than a little interesting, but some of these questions cannot be answered from afar.
Bolivia seems to be attempting to work their problems out through internal political processes, but stalemate seems the most likely outcome if this article is on the money.
I’m opposed to nuclear power and think it a bad idea in the immediate to long term interests of the planet, but think Iran has as much formal right to develop nuclear power programs and subsidiary industries as does Australia or any other nation which already has or intends to. Any other position is hypocritcal, biased in favour of those countries that have already developed it and blatant political interference in the rights of sovereign nations to determine their own needs.
Re the proposed constitutional changes which would annul
presidential term limits (and extend the duration of terms from six years to seven). This measure would merely bring Venezuela into line with France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and most other European nations who have no such term limit either. Why is it that which is acceptable in the West is not acceptable for Third World nations?
And the completely legal Venezuelan constitutional reform packgate (which btw guarantees private property) will not be adopted by decree. First, it must be extensively debated throughout the country. Then it has to be approved by 167 National Assembly deputies. And lastly, it has to be submitted to public referendum. In sum, the people have the last word. Would that we could have such democracy. Plus the democracy of moving to eliminate poverty and ensuring free basic social welfare programs to all, particularly those most in need, such as Indigenous people and women.
thanks for the message joe2. No blog of my own yet. Not sure if it would be a good idea.
jinmaro, good points. Personally, I’d run a democracy screen over anyone we sell uranium to and I’m definitely not in favour of undemocratic countries building the capacity to build nukes. How we put the genie back in the bottle and whether there is rank hypocrisy on the part of the nuclear powers is another whole issue. maenwhile Chavez seems to want to sidle up to anyone who will get up the nose of Bush. I don’t see any discrimination on his part at all.
Now I’m really out the door.
Seeya tonight.
Brian, Venezuela’s collaboration with Iran is not new. They are both important members of APEC and the key element they have in common is oil. The two countries have more recently developed oil production, export and pricing policies and other bilateral economic agreements, in large part driven by the acute understanding that the US governmen’ts threats and hostility towards both countries are based on Washington’s determination to dominate their oil reserves – at whatever cost in human suffering.
The US attempted a coup in Venezuela in 2002. I am sure the Venezuelan people are well aware too that in 1953, the CIA under Eisenhower, with the support of British intelligence, orchestrated a coup d’etat that toppled Mohammad Mossadegh and his democratically elected government in retaliation for loss of Western imperialist control of the Iranian oil industry.
The crushing of Iran’s first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, which relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 helped spread Islamic militancy, and further undermine democratic leaning regimes and deepen regional econonmic and social inequality. It also led, in an almost direct way, many argue, to the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre, the Iraq tragedy, and the more dangerous, more violent, less democratic world we all behold today.
oops, quite a Freudian. Didn’t mean to channel George Bush. I meant “OPEC”.
In what sense is the world more violent now than it was, jinmaro?
BBB
In the sense that more human beings are being killed or allowed to die by human decision than ever before in human history, BBB. Your decision, BBB. Since you live in a democracy.
Fair enough. Not sure what the last two sentences mean, though. You’ll need to spell it out for me I’m afraid.
BBB
Ah, figured it out now! Cheers for that; I am honored. But the subject matter is a little worrying. My social and political views are hardly recycled. Are they?
BBB
BBB responds:
You thinks so?
Well I accept that is what you meant when you wrote ‘more violent’, which is all I wanted to know and asked for. Not sure whether it is actually true or not.
BBB
Or less democratic? Uunless you mean democratic as in the Democratic Republic of East Germany? Truth is there are way more democracies now than 50 years ago. About 120 I seem to recall. Some leave a bit to be desired but the trend is definitely there.
Will do, jinmaro. Talk again soon.
Cheers
BBB
BBB, jinmaro and CK
I just deleted a conversation between CK and BBB which had nothing to do with this blog and an unedifying exchange between BBB and jinmaro.
BBBs last refers to one from jinmaro that’s gone.