|
Edited on Wed Oct-08-08 12:23 PM by Peace Patriot
whose economies have been devastated by U.S. dominated "free trade," and U.S.-dominated World Bank/IMF loan sharks, whose natural and financial resources have been plundered by U.S.-based global corporate predators, and whose rightwing elites prospered from collusion with the U.S., while their countries went down to ruin, and the vast poor majority suffered dire poverty, with the most basic social decencies looted to stuff the pockets of first world investors.
"Communism for the rich" = the rich get to loot and plunder, and when there is nothing left to loot, the poor pay the bill.
It's interesting how a more reasonable policy--i.e., we all share the risk, the profits and the bills--gets termed "leftist" (read "communist") in the U.S. press, even by the more objective journalism of McClatchy news service. The news service tends toward old-fashioned, objective journalism--and has been noticeably better than all others on the Iraq War--although their acquired subsidiary, the Miami Herald, are foaming-at-the mouth Bushwhacks on the Latin America left.
I've been wondering how that is working out--the far superior Knight-Ridder journalists (also acquired by McClatchy) in the same business organization as the Miami Herald. In particular, I was wondering how it is working out as to Latin American issues. This article is a sort of crossroads of the two tendencies.
The title is very Miami-Heraldish. It describes the Latin American comments about the Bushwhack 'bailout' as "gloating," rather than, say, as "truth-telling" or "ironical." The title seems to want us to hate the Latin American left, for kicking us when we're down, when all they are doing is pointing out the hypocrisy, and rightfully so. ("How are you doing, Comrade Bush?"--what a funny line.)
Then, the article ends by quoting Manuel Sutherland, "a senior official in the Caracas-based Latin American Association of Marxist Economists, who says, of Bush, "He carries out nationalizations to save capitalism....We want to sink it."
Unfortunately, to many north Americans, the U.S. = capitalism. Due to decades of brainwashing, our citizenry finds it hard to separate the two. Or perhaps it's more like, democracy = capitalism. So a sentiment like, "We want to sink capitalism" has a menacing tone. Many here will subconsciously absorb that as, "We want to sink democracy," or "We want to sink the U.S." That may be true of "Marxist economists," but it is NOT true of South America's leaders. What is happening in South America--the trend of the overwhelming leftist tide on that continent--is an innovative mix of capitalism and socialism, more European/Scandinavian and pre-Thatcher U.K., than communist. In fact, it isn't communist at all, and even the most left of the new leaders, Chavez and Morales, don't call themselves "Marxists" or "communists." Chavez in particular is very pro-small business. He wanted to provide street vendors with a pension system! His government promotes and helps fund start-ups. And his government has produced a nearly ten percent growth rate, over the last five years, with the most growth in the private sector. It's the big behemoths that he fights--the corporate bullies and monopolies, and global corporate predators like Exxon Mobil (who are the true "Stalinists" of this world--they want all production and profit, and all the powers of government, in their own oily hands).
So-o-o-o, why is McClatchy seeking out and quoting a Marxist economist? That seems designed to be scary to U.S. readers, especially in current circumstances. None of the South American governments whose leaders are commenting on the irony of "communism for the rich" are Marxist or communist. And all of them are working with the capitalists in their own countries, to protect and expand their markets, vis a vis U.S. and other foreign corporate giants.
In between the title and this conclusion, there are some reasonable, appropriate quotations and characterizations. It's as if the editors took a fairly decent news article on Latin American reaction to the Bush 'bailout' for the rich, and tacked on some Corpo/fascist "coloration" to the title and the conclusion. First impression, last impression is designed to put off the U.S. reader. I'm not saying the editors did this. It may be that the conflict between good journalism and Miami Heraldism occurs within the minds of the reporters' themselves (and is not an organizational conflict). But, anyway, the conflict is there.
And then there is this...
------
McClatchy:
John Ross, who has begun providing advice to the Chavez government, along with his boss, former London Mayor "Red" Ken Livingstone, criticized the U.S. president and his conservative political allies.
"They have abandoned every policy that they've advocated that other governments should follow over the past 20 years," Ross said by telephone from London. "And they've adopted the measures that they've condemned other governments for taking.
"This is not the end of capitalism. But it is the end of Reaganism and Thatcherism," he added.
------
The left--the truly reasonable, truly conservative position--gets called "Red," while Bushwhackism--radical fascism--gets called "conservative."
THIS journalistic bias may well be unconscious (rightwing "memes" internalized by the reporters). Still, it stands out to me as a journalistic error, and the "Red" mayor is way over the top. This decidedly rightwing characterization of a leftist politician should not have been used--or only used, in quotations, if a rightwing politician, or someone else, had said it. This article treats it as if it were a reasonable characterization. It is not. In the U.S., in particular, it is a McCarthyite, 1950s, "red-baiting" characterization. Livingston is NOT a communist. Nor is the leader he is advising (Chavez). Both a MIDDLE-GROUND politicians, who are trying to temper predatory capitalism with social justice and responsible government.
Caveat: I'm not sure how this term is used in London--"the Red mayor." It may be a term of affection. It may be in common usage, and intended with a smile. I really don't know. But, if so, it doesn't translate well to the U.S. or to the Americas, where "reds" were blackballed and destroyed in the McCarthy era, and got thrown out of airplanes or dumped into mass graves in Latin America. IF it is not a threatening fascist term, in London, then that should be indicated in the article. For instance, "Ken Livingston, whom some Londoners call 'the Red mayor,' although he is not a communist," or "Ken Livingston, whom the rightwing in England call as 'the Red mayor,'"--or some such explanation. As it stands, it is RED-BAITING!
-------
I love John Ross's quote:
"This is not the end of capitalism. But it is the end of Reaganism and Thatcherism." --John Ross
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
