There has long been a strand of thought on the left that the worse the crisis (of capitalism) gets, the better for the revolutionary cause. This is the anti-reformist, romantic tradition of radical politics. Naomi Klein's views on disaster capitalism, which does indeed benefit from crisis, are illuminating - partly because her analysis turns that argument on its head and demonstrates how capitalism turns even spasm into a business opportunity. Certainly, US companies that deal in construction, security and oil are reaping their profits from upheaval in Iraq as hugely and surely as if they planned the invasion themselves.But Naomi Klein's recent article on Mexico disturbs me - certainly in the headline, which claims that "war is again on Mexico's horizon", but also in the observations within about rising tension in Chiapas and the fear of possible future atrocities committed by thuggish "paramilitaries". Klein also quotes the Zapatista leader, Subcomandante Marcos - in some ways yesterday's revolutionary - uncritically and almost verbatim.
Why is war "on the horizon", when Mexico is palpably a stable and united country. To imply that Mexico or any part of it is faced with future war is almost farcical. It suits those on the left who want to paint a glossy wish-fulfilment fantasy about grand revolutionary Latin American alliances rising up to face down rampant global capitalism. Let's get a bit nuanced here.
It was Vincente Fox who resisted US calls to join in the war in Iraq, despite immense pressure from the "friendly" Bush administration, and at a price. Part of that price was to agree to the US construction of a wall along the frontier, instead of what Fox wanted, a visitor-permit programme. There is a place in the spectrum in the Latin American countries' standoff against overweening US imperial power for the Mexican standoff: where a national government quietly refuses to endorse the US invasion of Iraq, as the PAN government did. This has its element of political courage about it - when even good social democrats like the Dutch and Bill Clinton, went along with the invasion.
What is central to PAN's policy is development and what it labels the "war against poverty." If the left is going to dismiss any efforts unless they come from a charismatic man in a balaclava smoking a pipe and writing poetry, then we're in trouble. What name should we give these fables the "bullets-into-flowers" left weaves around chaps like Marcos? Perhaps Klein should also write about the dangers and sterility of disaster leftism.
We are assured that the Zapatistas formed their own government structures - "good government councils". Since when has any government worth its name tolerated independent fiefdoms within its borders? Let's be honest here. The only people who will rub their hands at the prospect of an independent Chiapas are the same people who benefit from the creation of all the little oil-rich enclaves. Look at the "new states" east of Russia.
It is only partially true that Chiapas has been neglected. The picture is much more complex. Chiapas is a variegated state. Many languages are spoken there. People differ from region to region. It's hard to get an accurate general picture. The corruption of the state PRI government is old news; if it is getting worse, that's bad news, but at the federal level, Chiapas is the state that receives more aid than any of the other, and a large proportion of federal aid goes to NGOs and not to the state government.
For insurgents like the Zapatistas, media publicity is a form of legitimisation. We should remember that the Zapatistas ceased to be relevant after they refused to get involved in the democratic processes following the 2000 election. Naomi Klein herself notes there is an element of political tourism about visiting the Zapatistas. She should be careful about awarding them legitimacy. She might be like the journalist character in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop, who helped generate a real war by inventing a fictional one to report on.
The argument could equally be made that Lopez Obrador wanted to stage a putsch. He certainly mobilised enough people to blockade and obstruct to justify calling it that.
I don't think you should dismiss out of hand the efforts of the other legitimate, democratically elected governments of Latin American coutries to combat poverty and forge independent foreign policies. It's not all about Chavez and co.
You can't live in a strange world of artificially heightened contrasts? To do so is to begin to lose your grip on the reality of the situation in Mexico and perhaps in other Latin American countries like Columbia.
The picture in Latin America is fuzzier and brighter than than a certain disaster hungry strand of the left makes out.
Oaxaca was another example of the PRD insurrectionist model for achieving government. The PRD allied themselves to the teachers union and got into an unsavoury argie bargie with the PRI over who would govern Oaxaca that had very little to do with democracy, but everything to do with threats of violence and political blackmail. The teachers union has always had a very bad reputation in Mexico for allowing itself to be used by political parties, in return for favours. In this case The PAN came out with the best democratic credentials from that sorry episode.
Why is war "on the horizon", when Mexico is palpably a stable and united country. To imply that Mexico or any part of it is faced with future war is almost farcical. It suits those on the left who want to paint a glossy wish-fulfilment fantasy about grand revolutionary Latin American alliances rising up to face down rampant global capitalism. Let's get a bit nuanced here.
It was Vincente Fox who resisted US calls to join in the war in Iraq, despite immense pressure from the "friendly" Bush administration, and at a price. Part of that price was to agree to the US construction of a wall along the frontier, instead of what Fox wanted, a visitor-permit programme. There is a place in the spectrum in the Latin American countries' standoff against overweening US imperial power for the Mexican standoff: where a national government quietly refuses to endorse the US invasion of Iraq, as the PAN government did. This has its element of political courage about it - when even good social democrats like the Dutch and Bill Clinton, went along with the invasion.
What is central to PAN's policy is development and what it labels the "war against poverty." If the left is going to dismiss any efforts unless they come from a charismatic man in a balaclava smoking a pipe and writing poetry, then we're in trouble. What name should we give these fables the "bullets-into-flowers" left weaves around chaps like Marcos? Perhaps Klein should also write about the dangers and sterility of disaster leftism.
We are assured that the Zapatistas formed their own government structures - "good government councils". Since when has any government worth its name tolerated independent fiefdoms within its borders? Let's be honest here. The only people who will rub their hands at the prospect of an independent Chiapas are the same people who benefit from the creation of all the little oil-rich enclaves. Look at the "new states" east of Russia.
It is only partially true that Chiapas has been neglected. The picture is much more complex. Chiapas is a variegated state. Many languages are spoken there. People differ from region to region. It's hard to get an accurate general picture. The corruption of the state PRI government is old news; if it is getting worse, that's bad news, but at the federal level, Chiapas is the state that receives more aid than any of the other, and a large proportion of federal aid goes to NGOs and not to the state government.
For insurgents like the Zapatistas, media publicity is a form of legitimisation. We should remember that the Zapatistas ceased to be relevant after they refused to get involved in the democratic processes following the 2000 election. Naomi Klein herself notes there is an element of political tourism about visiting the Zapatistas. She should be careful about awarding them legitimacy. She might be like the journalist character in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop, who helped generate a real war by inventing a fictional one to report on.
............
Following on:The argument could equally be made that Lopez Obrador wanted to stage a putsch. He certainly mobilised enough people to blockade and obstruct to justify calling it that.
I don't think you should dismiss out of hand the efforts of the other legitimate, democratically elected governments of Latin American coutries to combat poverty and forge independent foreign policies. It's not all about Chavez and co.
You can't live in a strange world of artificially heightened contrasts? To do so is to begin to lose your grip on the reality of the situation in Mexico and perhaps in other Latin American countries like Columbia.
The picture in Latin America is fuzzier and brighter than than a certain disaster hungry strand of the left makes out.
...........
Of course you can believe what suits you and fits your worldview. It is easier and more comfortable to believe in absolutes and then it also becomes easier to choose sides.
Lopez Obrador admits now that he lost the election. But after the election in 2006 his strategy, according to commentators like Carlos Ramirez, was to claim that there had been an electoral fraud simply in order to maintain the internal unity of the PRD.
Lopez Obrador admits now that he lost the election. But after the election in 2006 his strategy, according to commentators like Carlos Ramirez, was to claim that there had been an electoral fraud simply in order to maintain the internal unity of the PRD.
Otherwise, the PRD would have fallen apart after its electoral defeat in 2006. The PRD tactics at the time were to actually try and stop Felipe Calderon from being instated as the country's president through mass mobilisations. They tried to blockade the streets and used every possible tactic. This is the antidemocratic populist approach is what resulted in the fall in the popularity of the PRD.
Oaxaca was another example of the PRD insurrectionist model for achieving government. The PRD allied themselves to the teachers union and got into an unsavoury argie bargie with the PRI over who would govern Oaxaca that had very little to do with democracy, but everything to do with threats of violence and political blackmail. The teachers union has always had a very bad reputation in Mexico for allowing itself to be used by political parties, in return for favours. In this case The PAN came out with the best democratic credentials from that sorry episode.
Comments
Post a Comment