|
from 19 feb 2006 blue vol V, #1 |
|
|
Perspectives on Re-Thinking Revolutionary Meaning 
by Green Means Green
Simplistic thinking and few examples terribly mar an otherwise nicely written essay. He calls the warmongering of Bush, Chavez and even the independent media groups a big hype designed to provide cannon fodder and justifications for each side to fight and to destroy the environment. I agree that all of these people have done a poor job of educating - though Chavez would come out the best and the Earth First! Journal the worst! To reduce politics to the personalities of Bush, Chavez, Castro or bin Laden is childish. Bush is not the enemy - he and his chumps have just stolen the stage for now - the enemy is the 600 to 800 million people around the world of the middle classes and another wanna-be contingent of 400 to 700 million confused people. All of those who support or tolerate capitalism and the abuses of the USA are the enemy. Capitalism has been evolving for 500 years, USA imperialism has been growing more virulent for 200 years, and the current aggressions of the US have been planed for decades. Bush is but the temporary Champion. The alternative media's portrayal of Bush as the problem is the worst form of education.
And the media, like Guerrero's article, is the kind of middle class (anti-environment) attitude so common in the USA and spreading into Europe : a purposeful mis-education about power and how to combat it. It would help the debate if Guerrero or EF! would explain what a friend of the Earth is supposed to do or how EF! is helping. Since the US is an importer of coal how does it help the Earth to drive a coal company from Virginia to Colombia ? As far as the Earth goes I am sure it would prefer to have the coal mined in Virginia since the US has better environmental laws and importing coal (or anything) wastes a lot of energy or habitat in transporting the coal and building the port facilities. Oh, and the exploited workers, I guess the Earth doesn't care about them. If this middle class nimbyism is environmentalism then I would say that Earth First! (or that form of thinking) is the biggest threat to the Earth! What in the world does Guerrero mean when he says that "When the ecological collapse draws a line in the sand, Bush and Chavez won't find themselves on opposite sides." The average US citizen impacts the Earth about 10 times more than the average Venezuelan. How can any magazine publish such rubbish rhetoric? When the ecological collapse comes most Venezuelans will suffer terribly or be killed by the US which will continue to live comfortably behind their smart bombs or domed cities. Who cares who is on which side at the end? There won't be any sides except all of us against the elite - a fact which if promoted now might actually avoid the crisis. Why does Chavez trade with the West? To feed, educate and arm the people. Why doesn't Guerrero give us examples of the "always" defeated mega-projects that Chavez is "forcing" on the people? I think that he made this up and even if he can provide the examples I am sure the history is quite a bit more complex than he suggests. One minor point: Guerrero makes it sound like the World Bank, IMF and other regional banks are not part of the USA Empire - if he thinks this, then he is mistaken. Chavez wants to do away with these and have banks fully controlled by the people of the South. The main problem with his article - the tragedy of effort and utility wasted - is that he offers no examples or alternatives - except ALL STATES ARE BAD! I would rather have nine tenths (or even 110 percent) as much damage to Venezuela 's ecology if it benefited and inspired the poor, than to have terrible impacts that primarily benefit the rich! The implication that Colombian guerrillas call the shots in Venezuela is a cheap shot since Guerrero knows how extremely ill-informed US people are about the struggle in Colombia . I wish it were true that the FARC ran Venezuela and everything! But it is silly to imply such in Venezuela 's case. Page 15 of the EF! Journal, "IIRSA can't be US expansionism in one country and revolutionary integration in another." Again extremely simplistic thinking... Chavez plans on kicking out the US and probably the EU from South America once he and the Left in the region have enough power and the people are ready and understanding the need for expropriation and a completely regional focus. Until that time he plays the game, garners investments, keeps the US from using everything he does as propaganda (like Guerrero does) and Chavez hopes and prays that the masses wake up and demand a new socialism. People like Guerrero should be down in Venezuela or Bolivia helping people believe in a new development path - one of lower expectations of consumption fantasies - rather than playing at arm chair policy making. "It's obvious that we must end the destruction of the Earth - primarily caused by the industrialized countries" - Guerrero (page 15, EF!J) . OK... Thank you very much Guerrero, let's focus on the industrialized countries and put Chavez and other revolutions in that context. If Chavez can help us reduce the power and the waste of the industrialized countries then he will be an enemy of our enemy and a friend of the Earth - even if his people consume a bit more and cause a bit more destruction than they do now - but even that is questionable as once the rich and upper middle classes are gone there should be plenty for everyone and much less impact - especially if Guerrero and his ilk get down there and show people how to have more with less. Having said that the industrialized countries are the primary problem Guerrero has to back peddle, creating a new form of circular reasoning - let's call it a noose! He says that the South American elite intend to destroy the Earth as much as the gringos - but this is not only wrong (no one is as good at ecocide as the rich) but also it is a crime to lump Chavez, the Indians of the Andes or the Colombian guerrillas in with the rest of the elite. They support getting rid of the old - US-backed - elite and once they raise their standards of living a bit and have the time to see how economics and government policy work they will move steadily toward sustainability - especially with help and advice from all the do-good activists of the North. In a revolutionary context that makes sense, the Indigenous people everywhere (Kurds, Lakota, Amayara, Penan.) will move in mass raising their voices and throwing their numbers into the battle. Activists can cheer on and steer the path of the revolution in beneficial ways if they go to Venezuela or Bolivia and invest some blood, sweat and tears into demonstration projects in rural areas. This will have a real instead of rhetorical impact. Otherwise they should just stay in the wealthy countries and fight viciously. Get rid of the old elite(everywhere) and that will weaken the US imperialist machine, then liberation, self rule and sustainable development are possible - until then only war and suffering exist. Give the people of the South and Chavez a chance and if he is a problem then we can go after him or just move on and ignore those countries that won't develop new ways. Guerrero's article is sad in that it suggests that almost no-one on the planet wants to be simple and live with little impact on the planet. His effort is sad because he brings up issues like materialism that activists could help with, but he goes nowhere with these - the same things that EF! and many radicals have failed to make big issues of. Bolivia , Venezuela , and Ecuador support radical sustainable develop programs... Colombia would if the US stopped supporting and protecting the death squads. The debate in the South should be over how the government money is spent. Should infrastructure (roads, mass transit or power production) be prioritized or agriculture, education, environmental protection and re-tooling industry to produce useful products? Should the government buy sniper rifles or jet aircraft? Page 15 says "there will be no wars in Latin America , other than the ones being fought..." You mean the wars against neo-liberalism (WTO) and "Drugs" and change, and democracy, and indigenous people, and environmental destruction, and militarization. and IRAQ (public opinion about just how evil the US is?) and economics and past war crimes (abuses sponsored by the US in Chile , Brazil , Argentina , El Salvador , Panama , Nicaragua , Guatemala (ad genocidium???). He triumphs that: "sentiment for social change and justice ... we should support..." then somehow he miraculously avoids defining how these struggles are valid from an anarchists perspective or how we should support them and goes right into attacking Chavez's motives for selling cheap home heating oil in the USA - !!!!!!!!!! Guerrero seems to be switching back at the end of the article ot where he began: suggesting that the hype over US invasions is a smokescreen - even though he spent most of the article sshowing how the US is intervening (invading) the South now and forever. I don't get it - The whole article is lisleading, has few coderent examples and teaches all the wrong lessons. Guerrero doesn't get the broader picture at all - that Chavez is making noise to inspire the people of South America and alert the US people to the evils which capitalism and Bush have or will spawn there.... the continuation of the 505 Years War... Sadly "Our revolution will not be funded by oil" But it could be!
|
| BLUE is looking for short fiction, extracts of novels, poetry, lyrics, polemics, opinions, eyewitness accounts, reportage, features, information and arts in any form relating to eco cultural- social- spiritual issues, events and activites (creative and political). Send to Newsdesk. |