Cappies major concern - what they really care about

[Larissa]

Despite some cappies say they have "sometimes" experience a feeling of solidarity among human beings like them, their major concern in life (and they actually devote their lives to it) is the following:

http://www.foulds2000.freeserve.co.uk/economists.htm

Please roll the mosue all over the screen to undertsand cappies concerns better and watch their faces.

[von Mises]

Ever read a book about Liberalism Larissa?

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from von Mises on 2:42 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
Ever read a book about Liberalism Larissa?

I've read Friedman and Hayeck von Mises. I understand what you are saying. Larissa might say that that those neo-liberal ideology is little more than an excuse for protecting their own interests, as such those cited on that website - money, luxury etc.

[sc4r]

I honestly belive there are two sorts of capitalists

Pragmatic capitalists really do care only about how they can maximise their personal gains. Capitalism for them is a flag of convenience.

Idealist capitalists really do believe that their system is the one that delivers the greatest justice and satisfaction to the most people.

Most real life capitalists are a bit of both (just as few socialist are completely the paragons of virtue we would like to think we are).

I hate to admit it but I was once an ardent capitalist, for exactly the same reasons that I am now an ardent socialist. I saw through not the objectives of capitalism (which are perfectly laudable) but the inadequacies of such a system to deliver those objectives.

Detest the capitalist system not the average capitalist. Many are misguided not evil and paradoxically the more enamoured they are of capitalist ideals the less evil they are likely to be.

[Larissa]

Quote: from von Mises on 11:42 am on Feb. 28, 2003
Ever read a book about Liberalism Larissa?
Yes, von Mises. I have read Noam Chomsky's "Profit over people" and I strongly recommend you to read this very educational book.

[von Mises]

Larissa might say that that those neo-liberal ideology is little more than an excuse for protecting their own interests, as such those cited on that website - money, luxury etc

With that I agree. I have the same problem with people who think that under the flag of liberalism think that they can do everything they want. I wouldn't call it "misguided" rather "uneducated" ;)

Is that the only book Larissa? I disagree on some vital points with Chomsky. Though he is one of the more prominent anarchist in US I have seen him more and more in favour of restrenghtening the federal government. His reasoning is that the power of companies is more dangerous than the power of the state.

While I wouldn't dismiss the fact that indeed companies have a lot of power in the US, this is only because the government allows them. And since the government has an legalized monoply on the use of violence (issuing laws etc), and not the companies, I think he is wrong.

But although some people can act like Gordon Gecko, this doesn't mean that every capitalist is bad. Furthermore, all people starting their own company are essentially in it for their own personal gain, or they might go bankrupt.

[Larissa]

"His reasoning is that the power of companies is more dangerous than the power of the state"

And who do you think is backing Bush's oil war???

The large corporations!

Do you really believe that Capitalism is "so humanitarian" that really cares about the people they starve at third world countries thanks to their policies?

Where do you live?

[Larissa]

BTW, I've read many books about this subject whose authors I'm sure you don't know such as: Rodolfo Walsh, Nestor Kohan, Claudia Korol, Galeano, Bonasso, etc.

And others, like John Locke, whom I believe you do know.

The reason I oppose to your so called "Liberalism" is just because of its main characteristic:

"Individualism: Personal values are above collective values."

[von Mises]

That is not what I am trying to say. Companies cannot force people to do something, governments can. Otherwise they just throw you into jail.

People in Third World countries die because of a couple of reasons, and none of them is capitalism. Trade restrictions issued by western governments (nothing to do with capitalism) or stupid dictators are some. Look at Zimbabwe for instance.

Every person is an unique individual, and therefor you cannot force him into a collective. That's stupid thinking. People should be free to pursue whatever they want. In a liberal society one can choose to become a communist with a group of peers. In a communists society people are not free to do what they want because it is not for the greater cause of the collective. Thus a communist society can only survive if its members have freely chosen to do so.

Of course I know John Locke, the others I don't. But unfortunately my spanish is just as good as my japanese but if you could provide me with an english link I will.

And I live in the Netherlands by the way.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Governments give the companies power because they now rely on them. The annual earnings of some companies excedes the GNP of others. Countrie's are economically dependant on them. Also some will fund the elections, and gain favourtism. I think companies still have that power...what if arms manufacturors said no?

I agree in the needs of an individual...am therefore an anarchist, in that society everyone is free. If they group together then that is natural progression towards communism, the right way. As people are used to that lifestyle, the negatives of currently taught behavior disapear, then the benifits of a united society could again work.

[Larissa]

"People in Third World countries die because of a couple of reasons, and none of them is capitalism. Trade restrictions issued by western governments (nothing to do with capitalism) or stupid dictators are some"

I wish you could come to my country and see by yourself how capitalism destroyed a wealthy nation that has a democratic government, not a dictatorial one. And what about other Latin merican countries who don't have dictators and have been destroyed and their people starved due to the capitalist system of the US?

[von Mises]

So, looking at the writers I reckon you're Argentinian, correct?

Of course you'll know your country's history far better than I do, but what has the Videla regime to do with capitalism or the current situation?

I am sorry to say but you do have little understanding about capitalism and liberalism. These two are intertwined as capitalism is just an economic principle that is part of the larger philosophy of liberalism. Unfortunately you are mixing things up.

Why should I, as a libertarian from the Netherlands, defend the foreign policies of a country which isn't mine and which has nothing do to with liberalism? This is only abuse of power, the same thing the government in Argentina did.

[Pete]

As liberalism do you mean neoliberalism?? If so that is not Liberalism, but the corruption of it.

[von Mises]

No, I mean the form which was once used to build a society and now is abused by power hungry governments.

[Tkinter1]

"Individualism: Personal values are above collective values."

You disagree with that?


And do you believe in the elimination of all business, or just large corporations?

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 9:07 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Larissa]

Yes, sure, why worry about the rest of the world, the exploited and the oppressed, why should we worry about other people?

And what the hell had the militry coupd got to do with the financial collapse last year?

OMG, I see who is mixing up things. I see why some people don't give a damn about others who actually "live so far away" that is non of their business.

Nice feeling of humanism and solidarity.

[Larissa]

Oops, sorry I skipped this...
"Of course you'll know your country's history far better than I do, but what has the Videla regime to do with capitalism or the current situation? "

Actually, the last military government increased the external debt 5 times more favouring themselves and businessmen like Maxima's father, for instance, who profit capitalistically destroying a wonderful country.

Afterwads, the 10-year government of the utmost capitalist guy called Menem, increased the debt even 10 times more, again for his own benefit and his henchmen.

(Edited by Larissa at 8:11 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Larissa]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 6:04 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
"Individualism: Personal values are above collective values."

You disagree with that?


And do you believe in the elimination of all business, or just large corporations?

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 9:07 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)
I agree to put collective over personal values.

And about "businesses" I agree to the following statements:

"The commodity is the economic cell of capitalist society; so long as it exists its effects will make themselves felt in the organization of production and, consequently, in consciousness. "

"We are doing everything possible to give labor this new status of social duty and to link it on the one side with the development of a technology which will create the conditions for greater freedom, and on the other side with voluntary work based on a Marxist appreciation of the fact that man truly reaches a full human condition when he produces without being driven by the physical need to sell his labor as a commodity."

...
Che - Man and Socialism.

Of course, even when we are all born free and equal as human beings, you can choose to become a slave and belittle you own self.

[von Mises]

What would you have me do about it? Come and bring democracy or peace, then I would be an imperialist pig.

Your lack of common sense is stunning. I would almost call inrceasing debt socialist, as we see it so often happen with socialist governments in Europe. Are u in university? Is there a decent professor in economics or philosophy who can tell you the difference between capitalism and fascism or even mercantilism. You said you've read John Locke but I don't believe you anymore.

It is the people that screwed your country, not a system. It is the people that start wars, not a system. So don't be so shamefully ignorant.

[Larissa]

Quote: from von Mises on 8:34 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
What would you have me do about it? Come and bring democracy or peace, then I would be an imperialist pig.

Your lack of common sense is stunning. I would almost call inrceasing debt socialist, as we see it so often happen with socialist governments in Europe. Are u in university? Is there a decent professor in economics or philosophy who can tell you the difference between capitalism and fascism or even mercantilism. You said you've read John Locke but I don't believe you anymore.

It is the people that screwed your country, not a system. It is the people that start wars, not a system. So don't be so shamefully ignorant. My dear che-lives member, I think you don't need to be rude. I never insulted you. I'm not in the University, I've graduated a long time ago. I'm 40 years old, and I'm really sorry to realize young people like you think I lack of common sense.

I hope you could do something worth in your life helping people in need.

[von Mises]

Well, before we enter a discussion who started to insult the other, let me say that you haven't given any proof that you understand the basics of capitalism.

You tell me that capitalism wrecked your country, but what proof do you give me? Only that of bunch of thiefs used the government to exploit their personal interests. If that is capitalism then my uncle is really my aunt.

And please do not refer to capitalists as being egoistic because that's the biggest insult here. I am not calling communists thiefs either.

[Invader Zim]

von Mises

Well, before we enter a discussion who started to insult the other, let me say that you haven't given any proof that you understand the basics of capitalism.

You tell me that capitalism wrecked your country, but what proof do you give me? Only that of bunch of thiefs used the government to exploit their personal interests. If that is capitalism then my uncle is really my aunt.

And please do not refer to capitalists as being egoistic because that's the biggest insult here. I am not calling communists thiefs either.

Well Von Mises here is a socialist who does know what capitalisim is.

Modern Capitalism is theory of Adam Smith. He beleived that buisness should be allowed to run with no external regulation. This is also known as the Lesayie Faire (forgive the spelling) approach to buisness. It allows buisness to boom, creating much money. But as their is no external control then the Buisness men exploit their customers/workers. A perfect example is any LEDC involved in creating NIKE trainers or growing Bananas ect. This trend goes back to the time of the Industrial revolution in Britain, where workers lived in lesser conditions than the animals on a farm. In the City of london in an area of 100 metres squared the number of people could be more than 2000 people.

Below i will show the mathamatics be hind this.

60 houses on average. 6 rooms per house, 6 people per room. Total number of people living in these area's 2160. Of course this is not entirely accurate, their is no written rule, for this, this is probebly an extream case but these conditions still existed. This is because the employers built the workers housing.

The hoises also had no running water or propper toilet facilities. There may have been 1 privey and water pump per 10-20 houses. Wase would flow through the streets and collect in Cess-pits at the end of the street. This lead to huge outbreaks of choleara, TB ect.

The shocking thing is that in citys such as Nirobi, Kenya and many, many others this is still the case but instead of proper housing they live in wooden shacks.

(Edited by AK47 at 12:07 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)


(Edited by AK47 at 12:12 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)

[Old Friend]

"Below i will show the mathamatics be hind this."

LMFAO! Where is it?

I am going to make another "Ignorant Statments Hall of Fame". That's it.

(Edited by Old Friend at 2:19 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Old Friend on 12:17 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
"Below i will show the mathamatics be hind this."

LMFAO! Where is it?

I am going to make another "Ignorant Statments Hall of Fame". That's it.

(Edited by Old Friend at 2:19 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)


Are you blind or mathamatically illiterate.

60x6x6=2160

Maybe you should go back to primary school and lern your times tables again.

You may not beleive it but its true, all that i have posted earlier. Even the bit about the cess-pitt's. But i understand as a cappie you have a shield against the truth which may upset you.

[Old Friend]

I still don't see how your ability to multipy showed the mathematics behind anything. It certainly didn't help support your conclusion, which was poorly laid out, I might add.

(Edited by Old Friend at 2:40 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Fine look at this diagram

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/pictures/nottham.gif

and view this page if you dont believe me.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/...h/o%27crowd.htm (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/p-health/o%27crowd.htm)

[Invader Zim]

Any way WTF do you know about it, your from the usa what do you care about what happened 170 years ago 3000 miles away from country.

[Blibblob]

lol

Come on... for once... AK47 is right. But it has changed, and you never showed how it was like today that makes it so fucked up. I want to see your explanation for that.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 2:22 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
lol

Come on... for once... AK47 is right. But it has changed, and you never showed how it was like today that makes it so fucked up. I want to see your explanation for that.

Are you still in school? if yes get a human geography text book and look at LEDC's population and settlement section, and it explains it their, or i can just scan in some of my text book.

[Blibblob]

THATS FUCKING HISTORY YOU FOOL!!

I know history, quite well, I know those times.

But what i want is your explanation on why capitalism is so bad NOW. Labour unions have made conditions better. But the way we are exploited have not changed, just the perspective. Explain to me, already knowing, what you thing the problem with capitalism today is.

(and dont give me any rhetorical bullshit)

(Edited by Blibblob at 9:46 am on Mar. 1, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

I found some pictures any way: -

http://www.globaleye.org.uk/primary_summer/eyeon/images/ethio-shanty-town.jpg

http://www.seattleu.edu/student/clubs/calcutta/images/City/022.jpg

http://www.holidaytravelwatch.org/gallery/photos/SanAndrestown.jpg

http://www.holidaytravelwatch.org/gallery/photos/SanAndrestown2.jpg

http://www.soulsearching.ie/img/colombia.jpg

http://web.mit.edu/17.500/www/images/shanty_r.gif

http://daniel.haxx.se/travel/southamerica/venezuela/caracas4.jpg

I think thats enough proof of modern day slums.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 2:43 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
THATS FUCKING HISTORY YOU FOOL!!

I know history, quite well, I know those times.

But what i want is your explanation on why capitalism is so bad NOW. Labour unions have made conditions better. But the way we are exploited have not changed, just the perspective. Explain to me, already knowing, what you thing the problem with capitalism today is.

(and dont give me any rhetorical bullshit)

(Edited by Blibblob at 9:46 am on Mar. 1, 2003)


No that is not history those pictures i just posted are MODERN, this shit happens today. Do you really think that if these people were not exploited, they would live like that. They get like 1$ a day wage, because their employers keep ther wages low.

If that is not enough proof for you then nothing will be.

[Invader Zim]

I sugest you go to a place like kenya on hoilday or Bakina Faso. That would make you see the real crimes of Capitalism.

[Blibblob]

You are not catching my point here. I know the crimes of capitalism. I have unfortunatly never visited a third world country, but i know the problems. I know what happens everytime i buy a soda. Where that money goes to, the greedy bastards at the top, that exploit in sweatshops in other countries. What i was asking was for you to back up your pointless flamming against capitalism. You have half and half backed yourself up with those pictures. Good job.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 3:13 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
You are not catching my point here. I know the crimes of capitalism. I have unfortunatly never visited a third world country, but i know the problems. I know what happens everytime i buy a soda. Where that money goes to, the greedy bastards at the top, that exploit in sweatshops in other countries. What i was asking was for you to back up your pointless flamming against capitalism. You have half and half backed yourself up with those pictures. Good job.

What the fuck do you want me to back up then?

[von Mises]

Bliblob, you know the crimes of ceo's and governments.

Every human's most basic need is survival. So we can all decide to not buy nike shoes but then people in those countries will certainly die of starvation. Does that mean I agree with their situation? No of course not.

There are better ways to do this. Read for instance this interview (http://reason.com/DeSoto.shtml) with the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto. The same principle is now implemented by the socialist Lula in Brazil. This is what people really mean when they are talking about capitalism. The rest is greed.

And AK47 it is Laissez Faire. ;) . But with this he doesn't mean exploitation, as this is so contradictory to the liberal philosophy. If there would be a true liberal regime, individual rights of workers couldn't be violated.

Last thing, no real capitalist can have a problem with unions.





(Edited by von Mises at 4:39 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from von Mises on 4:38 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
Bliblob, you know the crimes of ceo's and governments.

Every human's most basic need is survival. So we can all decide to not buy nike shoes but then people in those countries will certainly die of starvation. Does that mean I agree with their situation? No of course not.

There are better ways to do this. Read for instance this interview (http://reason.com/DeSoto.shtml) with the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto. The same principle is now implemented by the socialist Lula in Brazil. This is what people really mean when they are talking about capitalism. The rest is greed.

And AK47 it is Laissez Faire. ;) . But with this he doesn't mean exploitation, as this is so contradictory to the liberal philosophy. If there would be a true liberal regime, individual rights of workers couldn't be violated.

Last thing, no real capitalist can have a problem with unions.





(Edited by von Mises at 4:39 pm on Mar. 1, 2003)


i understand the system perfectly, thanks and i know its not designed for exploitation but that's the way it is used, again Nike is a parfect example.

Thanks for the spelling tip, but as i cant spell in english theres not a chanse ill ever be able to spell in a forign language.

[von Mises]

No but in case of companies like Nike, you have to make a trade-off. People would either starve to death or children would have to sell themselves to fat old german men. In my case I would rather have them working for Nike.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from von Mises on 4:56 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
No but in case of companies like Nike, you have to make a trade-off. People would either starve to death or children would have to sell themselves to fat old german men. In my case I would rather have them working for Nike.

Yes but if Nike Paid them higher wages then they would have a better standard of living, Nike are just exploiting their bad situation.

[Blibblob]

They get paid more than any other job in their area. To the companies they think that they are "doing a good deed".

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Blibblob on 5:11 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
They get paid more than any other job in their area. To the companies they think that they are "doing a good deed".

It makes me sick.

[sc4r]

And AK47 it is Laissez Faire. ;) . But with this he doesn't mean exploitation, as this is so contradictory to the liberal philosophy. If there would be a true liberal regime, individual rights of workers couldn't be violated.


I’m sure that if you are genuinely informed you understand quite well the consequences of mathematical capitalism and game theory. These are fairly obvious to anyone with more than primary school arithmetic and an open mind, and surely do not need to be spelled out. To do so would be merely to give a demonstration of a very basic number theory.

You will also know the compensating factors invoked in theory to try and explain why the steady accumulation of more and more wealth, in fewer and fewer hands, coupled with an ever increasing disparity predicted by the raw mathematics, should not occur; or to the extent that it does, should not matter.

What AK47 is demonstrating is that in practice this compensation does not seem to have much effect. In a world run increasingly by adherence to capitalist* mechanics (if not principles) most people live in abject poverty, conflict is endemic, and wealth disparities become ever greater. Those parts of the world where there is greatest general, as opposed to polarised, wealth are rather paradoxically those where there is more leaning towards left wing and socialist policies not less**. In fact the situation is worse even than might be predicted by the maths because pragmatic ‘capitalism’ does not follow the idealistic principles of free negotiation and responsibility that exist in theory (something I see that you accept BTW).

If you are going to demand that people set aside the failures of capitalism in practise, on the grounds that these failures would not occur in theoretical capitalism, you are going to have to say what theoretical capitalism is. When you have done it, I will take pleasure in taking that exposition apart; because objectivism and its close relatives are philosophies so shot full of holes and implausible demands of human nature that they no more work in theory than practical capitalism does in practise.

I am accustomed to fighting through the rabid taunts of the uninformed to present the case for socialism and then going through the tedium of explaining basic principles to those few who will deign to restrain themselves long enough to hear even that. Here the boot seems to be on the other foot; nobody is going to justify socialism to you because most here feel it is already justified. If you want a respectful discussion it is you who are going to have to explain why anyone should listen, not us.

* Yes I know this would more properly be called liberal mechanics; I’m writing to communicate, not to play word games.

** This is not necessarily cause and effect; those parts of the world which accord their own citizens the greatest measure of socialism, are also often those which practise capitalist type ‘negotiation’ to exploit others. But it does rather dramatically demonstrate that there is certainly nothing about socialism that is inherently destructive of wealth (and if you dare to cite Facist failures as examples of socialist ones after your lecture on misrepresenting capitalism I will laff at you and point).

[von Mises]

I have read your arguments and I have some comments/questions before I can answer.

You are referring to the left-right dimension, on what grounds do you separate them? If this means giving people more individual rights I couldn't agree more.

I know the problems with Rand's theory, but there are lots of people also within the libertarian community who oppose at least some aspects of Objectivism. To begin with objectivity itself is cause for a debate.

I do not consider myself uneducated however considering capitalism the source of all misery on this planet is just as stupid as me saying that communism caused at least a 100 million deaths. However what I do know is that human nature isn't fit for equality.

[Larissa]

(Taken from La Jornada)

INTERVIEW WITH EDUARDO GALEANO
Argentina, ‘obedient’ victim

• ‘The lesson for the world is not to buy into the IMF’s discourse, which leads to extermination’

BY JAIME AVILES

MONTEVIDEO.- From the east side of the River Plate, 40 kilometers from Buenos Aires, full of a sadness he does not attempt to hide but which nourishes him with discoveries and revelations in the field of language, Eduardo Galeano bears witness to the terminal crisis in Argentina, a country, he says, that is "a victim of the universal doctrine that it accepted, complying with everything it was told to do," and which "now, on top of everything else, they are castigating for that very obedience."

In the Casa de los Pájaros, where he lives with Elena Vilagra in the Malvín district, walking with his dog Morgan up the narrow hills that lead to the beach, dining with his friends in an Italian restaurant where his portrait and those of Antonio Skármeta, Joan Manuel Serrat and José Saramago hang from the walls; in short, chatting with La Jornada late into the night in the basement of an old mill done up as a bar, the Uruguayan writer reflected out loud, using measured words that he sometimes drew out to stress their importance within the phrase.

Argentina did everything it was ordered to do by the International Monetary Fund and it’s destroyed. What is the lesson for Mexico?

It’s not only a lesson for Mexico, but for the world, and in general I would say not to fall for the story: one has to be a bit more careful; the discourses of power are not expressive, they conceal and disguise. The lesson is that one doesn’t have to go on buying into that discourse, which leads not only to the extermination of national economies, but to horrific consequences that are not only economic. A discourse that not only translates into mass impoverishment and an offensive concentration of wealth, but into slaps in the face, the daily insults that are the ostentation of the power of the few, in the face of the helplessness of the many...

What are the non-economic consequences?

First, the discrediting of democracy. Nowadays, it is identified with corruption, inefficiency, injustice, which is the worst thing that could happen to democracy. At the end of the day, democracy means "power of the people," and look to what extreme that word has been humiliated, ending up becoming the antonym of justice. A very large number of people increasingly perceive it as such, above all the youth. Democracy is a den of thieves which is of no use at all and merely injures the poor.

This is the vision of democracy held by a vast number of people, at least in the Latin American countries, and this is the gravest cultural consequence, because there is a democratic culture that allows the exercise of democracy to be more than Asian shadow puppets.

A breeding ground for fascism...

Another tremendous injury is the great damage that the culture of solidarity has suffered all these years. The links of social solidarity have cultural expressions born from a connection with others. In a system that preaches and practices selfishness, the culture of solidarity is being gravely wounded. Right now the predominant culture is that of "every man for himself," and if you fall, you’re screwed. And that also hurts me very much. I’m telling you things that hurt me about the current cultural reality and that translate into language changes: the dictionary is undergoing a shitty updating.

I wanted to ask you about the melancholy prevailing in countries like Argentina and Uruguay, which are basically composed of immigrants nostalgic for Europe.

Yes, these are countries overwhelmingly populated by immigrants, and here it’s interesting to note that that’s the basis of a universal perplexity, given the magnitude of a crisis like the one being suffered by Argentina, which is a veritable tragedy. There is universal perplexity because people don’t understand how such a thing could happen in a white, well-nourished country without a demographic explosion. The event in itself calls into question the theories of anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists and other "ologists" who, for example, identify underdevelopment and poverty with social explosions — things they say occur in obscure regions of the planet, regions condemned by destiny to suffer poverty because of the color of their skin, as a result of a miscegenation that did not bear good fruit. But contrary to those racist interpretations of human misfortune, episodes like this one in Argentina appear, and they can’t understand how it could have happened.

But Argentina has everything: water, oil, wheat, meat, a vast and empty territory. Some sectors of the left believe that it can save itself on its own.

That is impracticable. Nobody can be saved solely their own efforts. The only way out for the Latin American countries, in order not to lose everything or to recover part of what they have lost, is our ability to unite. In Latin America presidents meet but do not unite; they have those summits, give speeches, pose for the photo, but they are not capable of uniting to form a common front against the ruling international banking system, against the usury of the foreign debt that is strangling us, against the collapse of the prices of everything we sell. If the presidents were to unite, perhaps something could be done so as not to have to witness, fatalistically, this kind of universal imposition of misfortune, the destiny to which they want to condemn us. And here you have another contribution to the new dictionary.

What?

The new name for that financial dictatorship is the international community; anything that you do to defend the little that remains of your sovereignty is an attack against the international community, rather than an act of legitimate defense against the usury practiced by the banking system that rules the world, in which the more you pay, the more you owe. That is why in a country like Argentina everything has been dismantled: the economy, the state, the collective identity of a people who no longer know who they are, from where they came or where they are going. There is a spiritual void that symmetrically corresponds to the material void of a country plundered down to its cobwebs.

ARGENTINA LOST ITS ECONOMY THROUGH PRIVATIZATION AND URUGUAY IS ALSO IN DIFFICULTY

(Uruguay has three million inhabitants and a profound deception. It’s the middle of summer and the tourists from Buenos Aires who used to bring the necessary money — some $5 billion USD per year, so that the country could survive until the next vacation season — are still not arriving. Those resources are now frozen on the other side of the River Plate, within the bank shutdown that seized the savings and wages of Argentine depositors.

And "a tremendous crisis is going to break out here as well, it’s on all the book covers," says the taxi driver taking me once again to the Casa de los Pájaros, where Elena Vilagra and Eduardo Galeano live.

The interview is renewed in the little garden of his pleasant home. It’s extremely hot, we drink beer, eat fainá [spicy fritters] and talk in the shelter of the plants and flowers and trees of this "selva" into which the Uruguayan writer’s wife has poured her imagination and devotion since the couple returned from exile in Catalonia in the mid-’80s, after the end of the military dictatorship.)

We are on the bank of one of the widest rivers in the world, which touches two expressions of a single culture. Why hasn’t the same thing happened in Uruguay as has happened in Argentina?

There are certain significant differences between Uruguay and Argentina, within which there could be a list of things shared. A shared history that was broken starting with the disintegration of the colonial space that was the viceroyalty of the River Plate. They are differences that originate from the early reforms here in the era of José Batlle y Ordóñez, a man with a tremendous impetus for change and a precursor in his time (from 1904 onwards); a visionary who placed Uruguay in the world vanguard in many respects. It is hard to imagine that now, because we are in the rearguard in so many things, but this country was the successful laboratory for a series of social, political, economic and cultural transformations that are now no more than amazing tableaux in the distance. For example, the nationalization of public services and then the concept of the state as an industrial engine.

MIRACLE IN A SMALL COUNTRY

What kind of reforms?

An extremely early divorce law, in 1908; for example, my grandmother was divorced, and fundamental social reforms like free, obligatory lay education, including physical education. Uruguay filled up with sports fields, which explains the miracle of us being world soccer champions before the Jules Rimmet Cup existed, in the ’24 and ’28 Olympics and then in the first World Championships of 1930, something truly noteworthy in a country so small that it has fewer inhabitants than the municipality of Nezahualcóyotl. But it was possible because the state really was an expression of the community as a whole, not just a machine invented by a few to make mincemeat of the rest. In some ways, I believe that was what was behind the plebiscite organized some years ago. I don’t recall the date, but in all the euphoria of privatization in Latin America, when they were even selling obelisks, there was a plebiscite here and 73% of the population voted against privatization. Thus, public monopolies continue being public: telephones, light, everything that corresponds to state activity. Here people didn’t believe the story that privatization was going to free the country from the external debt — that rope that has us all dangling by the neck. And that was correct, because in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, where everything was privatized, not only was there no free competition; private sector monopolies and the external debt multiplied in the midst of an avalanche of capital coming from the sale of public services and resources. That plebiscite saved us from falling into the same trap.

How would you describe the situation in your country?

Uruguay is going through difficult times, globalization has hit us extremely hard, our industry has been demolished; little remains of the Uruguay that made and formed me. But in spite of that, the country still has some potential defenses that Argentina lacks, for the simple reason that the latter has lost its economy; if you don’t have some kind of control over the basic economic resources, sovereignty ends up being reduced to an anthem, a flag.

You were saying that the tragedy of Argentina, a white, educated and well-nourished society, has become an example of what could happen to any educated and well-fed society.

What happened in Argentina broke the boundaries of the schemas within which one sole philosophy tries to enclose reality. But it’s only one case. There is another that has painfully exposed the ignorance of the so-called Western world — because you’d have to see up to what point it is Western — in relation to the Islamic world, a culture that embraces more than one billion people and which has become the victim of the industrial-scale fabrication of lies to discredit it. I am a writer, or I like to believe I am, and I write in a language that has thousands of Arabic words, which I use all the time. That obliges me to be very careful about rejecting that kind of "dark threat" to which the media is trying to reduce Islam. Given that I was in exile in Spain, I can testify to that incessant homage to water that is Islamic culture, as opposed to the somber world of cathedrals from which I come, because I had a very Catholic childhood, but that does not prevent me from opening my eyes and trying to see the rest, the others, those who believe something different, who think differently, who feel differently. (British historian Arnold J.) Toynbee warns that decadent societies tend toward uniformity and ascendant societies tend toward diversity. When a society begins to decline, to fall, to remain silent, it always repeats the same words, it suffers a crisis of ideas that is manifested in repetition.

The society stops thinking for itself, right?

In relation to what happened last September 11, I have read the most colossally senseless things. For example, that the U.S. intelligence agencies are totally incapable of acting in Afghanistan because they lacked personnel "specialized in the Arabic language." But Arabic is not spoken in Afghanistan, only Pashtu and other languages. Or like the number of times I have heard talk of the "Arab threat," taking Iran as an example. But Iran is Persian, not Arabian. Or when there is talk of the "Arab religion." But the Arabs are a minority within Islam and the overwhelming majority of the world population that believes in the message of Muhammed is not Arab. I give this as an example of the stupidities repeated to us day after day, until they become irreversible truths.

Look what has just happened in a Boston university. A professor wrote to me to tell me that he had taken an article of mine in La Jornada about September 11 called "El teatro del bien y del mal" (The Theater of Good and Evil.) He put it on the Internet and distributed it among other professors from his college. However, one of them denounced him to the administration, which charged him with endangering national security. From there, the case was passed on to the state agencies, who warned that my article could contain subliminal messages in code, terrorist instructions in code. Now this professor has had to hire lawyers and has become the object of a persecution worthy of the McCarthy era.

So you must be on the Pentagon’s blacklist.

Well, I have the hide of an old elephant, but think of that man’s situation. This is the climate that is being mounted in the world to toss into the fire anything that could be taken for a doubt, any dissidence... For that reason, it is becoming more and more evident that something has to be invented, a way out, because we are banging our heads against the wall everywhere and all the time. And waiting for a miracle — like for my hair to grow — that is not possible. We have to rebel against this imposition of misfortune as a destiny and try to imagine something different, based on certain truths that we still can count on.

I hope you enjoyed the reading. - Lara

[RedPirate]

The Corporations and Government want oil... Now orries for the poor, starving, and dying...