Hace ya unas semanas tuve el agrado de almorzar con Ricardo Brown, reconocido periodista de Miami y conductor de un programa radial conjuntamente con Lourdes Ubieta en Actualidad 1020 de Miami, fue una conversación muy amical a pesar de recién habernos conocido y de tener como preámbulo un artículo mío donde lo critiqué directamente por su posición ante el concierto de Juanes en La Habana.

Y es que mi crítica fue más que ácida y sinceramente me sorprendió la manera como Ricardo la aceptó con total humildad ya que él tiene un “background” sorprendente como periodista, pero esta vez conocí al ser humano, humilde, terrenal, lleno de sabiduría y sensatez, sabiduría que le dan a él los años recorridos en el terreno del periodismo a nivel internacional.

Bueno, conversamos de muchas cosas como la caída del régimen dictatorial de los Ceucescu en Rumania ó la cruenta guerra civil en El Salvador lugares desde donde tuvo el privilegio de reportar para las cadenas en las que trabajo en esos tiempos y es que el haber estado en el mismo terreno de los hechos le da mayor veracidad a sus historias y eso lo enriquece a uno de la misma forma como reviso la historia del Perú conversando con mi abuelo ó de la misma forma como me nutrí de sucesos acaecidos durante la revolución de Castro en Cuba de parte de un viejo guajiro.

Así transcurrió está amena y enriquecedora conversación entre ravioles y spaghettis y de aqui quiero rescatar sus apreciaciones acerca del problema cubano y del exilio histórico de Miami, me contó que el era muy pequeño cuando se dió la revolución, pero sin embargo recuerda aún el triunfo de ésta y la algarabía del pueblo cuando llevaban al paredon a los sentenciados contrarevolucionarios, si, un pueblo lleno de algarabía ante la tragedia de los vencidos, el mismo pueblo que hoy llora la tragedia de no poder volver a su tierra.

Y es que los seres humanos tenemos una facilidad increíble de mimetizarnos ante cualquier situación de acuerdo a nuestra conveniencia y esto fue lo que sucedió en Cuba, gente que apoyó abiertamente la revolución, la aplaudió, salió a las plazas a presenciar ejecuciones y hasta las aplaudían sin darse cuenta que lo que estaban apoyando era una revolución que no defenestraría a un tirano sino que lo cambiaría haciendo un giro de 180º en la política e impondría un gobierno comunista que en vez de beneficiarlos les quitaría lo ganado para distribuirlo entre los demás.

La óptica de Ricardo me pareció muy interesante, reflexiva sobre los errores que cometemos los seres humanos, errores que muchas veces llevamos como un estigma durante nuestras vidas, errores que muchas veces no asumimos y se convierten en una carga constante, la terquedad de no asumir responsabilidades, de no ser capaces de poner las barbas en remojo y comenzar a analizar su situación desde sus propias acciones.

Aprendí mucho de Ricardo Brown y tengo que reconocer que así como lo critiqué por su apasionamiento reconozco que señalé al ser humano sin saber porqué lo hacia y es que en el entendimiento y en la comprensión nace la razón y la razón me muestra ahora a un ser humanodigno de admirar con sus errores y sus virtudes pero con una capacidad de retroalimentarse aún del más humilde ser humano y ese valor lo reconozco de sobre manera.

Fue un delicioso almuerzo en todo sentido, una excelente comida muy bien elaborada y una mejor tertulia de la cual aprendí que los seres humanos tenemos mucho que ofrecer y que, sobretodo, las opiniones vertidas por alguna situación no determinan necesariamente el sentido de la persona, errar es humano dicen por ahí pero cuando este tiene la capacidad de reconocerlo cobra un valor sin parangón, lamentablemente el exilio histórico aún no reconoce sus errores, quizás por eso es que ya pasaron 50 años y aún siguen con la misma retórica sin darse cuenta que todo cambiaría si voltean los ojos a ese pasado que quieren pasar por inadvertido.

Gorbachev, com sua tradicional marca vermelha, é, ainda hoje, um líder inspirador. Sua obra política merece todos os prêmios possíveis

O século XX tem um personagem, tem um cidadão mundial. Essa pessoa se chama Mikhail Serguéievich Gorbachev.

Foi líder da União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas de 11 de março de 1985 até a sua extinção na noite de Natal em 1991.

Sua necessidade de reformar o sistema soviético –procurando salvá-lo da decadência e fim – levou-o a formular as duas políticas centrais de seu governo: glasnost (transparência, com significado de abertura e participação política) e perestroika (reestruturação econômica).

Gorbachev é, ainda, personagem central e decisivo para o fim da Guerra Fria.

Foi a sua busca incessante pela distensão na política internacional que rompeu as reservas, em muitos modos  justificadas, dos dois grandes líderes dos países capitalistas da época: Ronald Reagan (presidente dos EUA de 1981 a 1989) e Margareth Tatcher (primeira-ministra britânica de 1979 a 1990), em relação à URSS.

Tomou atitudes unilateriais, como a suspensão dos testes nucleares e a redução de armamentos convencionais e nucleares na busca por esse novo espírito de entendimento que tanto queria construir.

Em 1987 lançou um livro, “Perestroika: novas ideias para meu país e o mundo”, que se tornou best seller mundial de vendas, tanto pela credibilidade – inédita para um líder soviético – conquistada no Ocidente, quanto pelas propostas e ideias defendidas. Gorby, como era chamado, tornou-se um fenômeno de massas. Verdadeiro e inesperado.

Em 1988 abandonou a Doutrina Brejnev, que estabelecia, como resultado da 2ª Guerra Mundial e de tratados posteriores, a dominação soviética em todo o Leste europeu, afirmando que os países do Bloco poderiam adotar, ao seu critério,regime democrático.

Foi essa sua postura que permitiu nos maravilhosos anos de 1989 a 1991 o desaparecimento daquele regime opressor e tantos problemas mais que ele, apesar de tudo, não conseguiu reformar.

Em 1990 foi agraciado, por motivos bastante reais, com o Prêmio Nobel da Paz.

Gorbachev era um comunista que evoluiu para uma postura social democrata. Chegou mesmo a declarar que os países nórdicos europeus eram a consumação da ideologia socialista, com a qualidade de vida e a liberdade que possuíam (chegou até a fundar o Partido Social Democrata Russo, em 2001).

Espírito elevado, mas de pragmatismo evidente, percebeu ao longo de seus anos de poder, que o socialismo soviético era incapaz de ser reformado.

Seu legado, no entanto, é tão maravilhoso que merece, esse cidadão do mundo, todas as honras que lhe queiram prestar.

Desde hace varios años se han venido observando ciertos cambios en la manera de imponer un gobierno en latinoamérica, facciones de derecha y de izquierda han aprendido a utilizar la ley para poder perpetuarse en el poder, así ante eventuales bloqueos de parte de la comunidad internacional sendas dictaduras han comenzado su propceso en varios países de latinoamérica, otras fracasaron pero hay muchas que siguen en su proceso.

El caso Fujimori marca un hito en esta nueva casta de dictadores, si bien es cierto el se “aplicó” un “autogolpe”, luego utilizó una nueva constitución hecha a su medida y validada a través de un referéndum popular, así trató de perpetuarse en el poder sin embargo los cálculos le fallaron y lo que se convertiría en su segundo mandato (según él), terminó por convertirse realmente en un tercer mandato y por consecuencia anti constitucional ya que en el Perú, de acuerdo a la nueva constitución de Fujimori, sólo puede existir una re elección.

Si Fujimori hubiese aceptado que se trataba de una segunda elección entonces hubiera aceptado que dió un golpe de estado en 1992 ya que sólo trataba de contar sus períodos a partir de 1995, pero con videos de corrupción a la vista de todos los ciudadanos peruanos y con un pueblo harto de abusos y de sinvergüenzadas no le quedó otra opción más que la renuncia por fax después de su fuga.

Pero el caso de Fujimori sólo representa una muestra de lo que vendría luego, por coincidencia Vladimiro Montesinos, ex asesor de Fujimori y mano derecha del mismo, fugó hacia Venezuela donde fue capturado, ya en ese entonces Chávez ostentaba el poder en ese País, se supo luego por investigaciones periodísticas que Vladimiro Montesinos tuvo contactos importantes con gente del gobierno de Chávez, una coincidencia que podría servir de base para el consecuente asentamiento de Chávez en el poder.

Chávez fue más cauto en este sentido, sabía que para no ser bloqueado por la comunidad internacional debería someterse a los procesos constitucionales de su País, es así como amparado en una herramienta constitucional como lo es el referéndum modifica legalmente la misma carta magna sentando las bases de consecutivas re elecciones que lo tienen sentado en el poder ya por más de 10 años y lo que es peor le han dado facultades para que pueda gobernar a través de decretos, así, no tiene reparos para, a través de la ley, lanzarse ferozmente en contra de sus adversarios sin importarle pisotear derechos fundamentales como el de la libre expresión.

Al igual que Chávez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales y Daniel Ortega van por el mismo camino, similares estrategias con similares retóricas hacen pensar que sus objetivos van más allá de querer perpetuarse en el poder sino que caminan hacia la consecusión de una unión de Países en bloque cuya finalidad no será la protección de sus ciudadanos sino la hegemonización de una doctrina que pretende endiosar a Hugo Chávez y dejarlo como líder único tal como lo soño en algún momento Simón Bolívar.

No podemos dejar de nombrar tampoco a Alvaro Uribe y so loca ambición de mantenerse en el poder, sin bien es cierto este Señor no tiene ambiciones “imperialistas” representa intereses externos a los cuales salvaguarda para mantener un equilibrio en la región, Uribe es un buen presidente pero no se puede obviar el tema de la corrupción en Colombia y mucho menos el tema de los para militares que tanto daño le hacen a esa gran nación.

Todos estos gobernantes pertenecen a una nueva casta de dictadores que han sido engolosinados por el poder y han llegado a creerse imprescindibles en sus Países, creen que sin ellos los proyectos exitosos no serán tales y que un eventual cambio sería retroceder, ellos piensan que son lo únicos capaces de sacar adelante un País y no se dan cuenta que sólo terminansiendo un triste remedo de Fidel Castro ó de Pinochet.

Los Países no necesitan caudillos ni dioses, los Países necesitan gente responsable, profesionales a carta cabal que hagan de la política lo noble y bella que es, que esten en política para servir al pueblo y no para servirse de él y que tengan en la democracia a su principal fundamento, la alternatividad en el poder evita la corrupción y evita la aparición de caudillos y de “dioses” y en nuestras manos está el mantener ese preciado sistema.

Este pensamiento se llama: “Latinoamérica: legitimación y escenario teatral de un guión pseudo izquierdista”. Quiero hablar de la gran farsa inventada por los evasores de impuestos de los países mas ricos y poderosos del mundo, cuyo fin es eliminar al Estado y transformarlo en gerente de operaciones de compra y venta y observador de la autogestion ciudadana.
Para ese pesado proyecto se inspiraron como un guión cinematográfico o teatral, en la escuela de Marx, tal vez por ser todavía la mas temida de todas, principalmente porque casi nadie la entiende y por eso mismo muchos la idealizan como un fantasma que todavía circula por el mundo… el comunismo. Los marxistas, hoy muy activos, son los idiotas útiles del esquema, muchos están felices porque creen que toda la “anarquía” en que vivimos es el fin del capitalismo, y como ellos erradamente creen que el estado es burgués, colaboran enfáticamente para su destrucción,… no saben que trabajan gratis para que el capitalismo salvaje se fortalezca cada vez mas…
Me atrevo a afirmar que toda la política mundial que actual es mentira, pero, se puede también afirmar que casi todos los europeos creen ciegamente que los trabajadores del mundo se están organizando en contra de sus patrones, creen que la Internacional Socialista esta próxima y que la propiedad privada esta en serio riesgo. A ello se suman como exceso de informaciones, y buen método idiotizante, mas y mas evidencias o ingredientes para la torta de mentiras, el terrorismo, el peligro que representa China, India, Irán, Irak, la gripe de las aves, el carbunco en polvo(ántrax), las vacas locas, la malaria, el dengue, el sida, la violencia, la influenza, el narcotrafico, la criminalidad y la inseguridad.
Colocan calculadamente a Presidentes izquierdistas por todas partes, malandros y sin vergüenzas que se presentan con tono amenazante, acompañados de movimientos de los sin tierra (fabricados, no los verdaderos, los verdaderos son echados a palos) , los sin techo (fabricados), las guerrillas urbanas (fabricadas) y toda parafernalia promotora del miedo, inventada con el fin de debilitar a los ciudadanos y Estados Europeos, los esta llevando al pánico total, a la desestabilizacion, que es el medio escogido para llegar al objetivo principal, la casi extinción del Estado. Los europeos no saben que, lo que esta ocurriendo es exactamente al revés, no son los trabajadores quienes se organizan, son los evasores de impuestos, monitoreados por los que se auto nombraron gendarmes del mundo, Los Estados Unidos de América, apoyados por el Grupo de los 8, son los hombres mas ricos del mundo, hartos de esconder sus dineros negros; hoy, financiando la flexibilidad en las Leyes Laborales, el achicamiento del Estado, la estabilidad energética de ellos, la liberación del dinero y el fin del socialismo.
El supuesto resurgimiento del marxismo es todo un show, es la autodestrucción del capitalismo elaborada artificial y cuidadosamente por ellos mismos, los capitalistas salvajes, para engañar a los tontos, es como un espectáculo, América Latina es como una pantalla, con los artistas mas renombrados “nuestros grandes lideres”.
Un espectáculo bien montado para justificar el “urgente cambio necesario”. En realidad, en Latinoamérica, así como en Africa y Asia la mayoría de los trabajadores esta mas anémica que nunca, sin alimentos, sin educación, sin salud y atrapados debatiéndose entre la miseria, los politiqueros y los falsos sindicalistas, están marginados, sin fuerzas, sin Leyes y sin justicia. Una aclaración: Dentro del mencionado show los muertos son verdaderos…cuando matan a los ricos o sus familiares como ejemplos para dar la idea de lucha de clases, los muertos y todo el sufrimiento de familiares y ciudadanos, es verdadero… así como son verdaderas las tragedias ocasionadas por los falsos ataques terroristas. Para nuestra desgracia. Globalizacion con la manipulación de mentiras Ah! Pero no se preocupen, después de todo, cuando el Estado ya no exista mas, ellos, los evasores de impuestos, los que están carcomiendo la dignidad del mundo, prometen ser solidarios y generosos con los pobres, prometen un dulce y caritativo capitalismo social. Suerte que la mentira tiene patas cortas… Fuente: A

Admiro Obama e os valores que representa mas parece-me um pouco cedo para lhe atribuírem o Nobel da Paz.

Desejo  que este prémio represente um incentivo para uma boa governação, enfrentando a infame oposição que tem sido levada a cabo pelos conservadores apoiados nos seus amigos da NRA e  na ridícula Fox News.

Basta ver as dificuldades que Obama está a sentir na aprovação do seu plano para a reforma do sistema de saúde americano que actualmente barra o acesso de largos milhões americanos a cuidados básicos de saúde.

A extraordinária viagem da ciência desde o território do cérebro humano até aos confins do Universo (E, se mais Mundo houvera, lá chegara.) continua a surpreender o Mundo.

A capacidade humana para fazer mal a esse Mundo, no entanto, continua a não ter limites.

E depois há coisas que estão fora da compreensão humana.

Hace unos días ya conversaba con amistades sobre Hugo Chávez, los más recalcitrantes afirmaban que se trata de un dictador diabólico, otro lo tildaban de comunista, de payaso, de bufón y mil epítetos más, tienen razón todos, pero ¿será realmente legal llamarlo tirano? ¿tendrá acaso acciones que se acerquen siquiera al comunismo? ¿de payaso tendrá algo? me puse a buscar algo de información acerca de él y encontre muchas cosas, algunas me sorprenden pero fundamentan lo que ya pensaba de él y del porqué se prolongaba tanto su gobierno.

Desde que Chávez llegó al poder no ha dejado de aparecer en televisión, radio internet y ahora inclusive hasta en el cine, me parece que es el Presidente más mediático sobre la faz de la tierra en este momento, los medios contrarios a él viven detractándolo, se burlan de él a diario sin darse cuenta que le dan una tribuna inmerecida, gracias a ellos su principal “enemigo” (léase Hugo Chávez) mantiene una vigencia sorprendente a nivel mundial y sin querer le han ayudado a expandir su obsoleta ideología por todo el mundo.

Pues a mi me resulta, en este aspecto, muy habilidoso Hugo Chávez, ha creado una red de comunicación a nivel mundial sin quererlo y que le sirve de base para su propaganda ideológica, él lo sabe ahora y hasta hace mofa de eso, dijo una vez: …“¡le voy a dar de comer a los medios de comunicación! ¡claro pues! ¡cada vez que digo algo aparece en todos lados! ¡ellos saben que sin mi no pueden vivir!”… vaya arrogancia, pero lamentablemente es cierto, es que publican cualquier barrabasada que emana de la boca de tan singular personaje.

Otro aspecto importante es el señalamiento de sus detractores quienes lo han estigmatizado como un comunista enemigo de la democracia, seguro que si, ¿pero será comunista? algunas de sus acciones asi lo señalan como por ejemplo la creación de las misiones en los barrios populares en su País, ha sido capaz de llevar salud y educación gratuita a lugares donde no existían, lugares de extrema pobreza donde los médicos Venezolanos no querían ir por temor a la delincuencia y que solucionó importando médicos cubanos que inclusive viven en esos barrios.

Ese quizás sea uno de los logros más importantes de él y más que comunista lo llamaría socialista, así solidifica su base electoral y constituye una columna vertebral que le asegura la consecutividad de su gobierno, ¿es esto anti democrático? no lo creo. Veamos.

Al igual que Fujimori en el Perú, Chávez a logrado consolidarse en el poder contando con una base legal, recordemos a Fujimori y su re elección basada en una consecutividad que le otorgaba la nueva constitución que el mismo redactó, sin embargo quizo re elegirse por tercera vez pero cometió un error fundamental, la constitución que el redactó sólo permitía una sola re elección y él ya estaba en su segundo mandato, el querer anular su primer mandato (el de 1990) hubiera sido aceptar que cometió un golpe de estado en 1992. Aqui me resulta un poco suspicaz la huída de Montesinos a Venezuela.

Chávez con mayor experiencia vió por conveniente modificar la constitución venezolana basándose en un principio democrático de la libre determinación de los pueblos y para eso llamó a referendums (mecanismos contemplados en la constitución) para preguntarle al pueblo si quería modificar la constitución, el pueblo le dió el apoyo y ahí lo tenemos ya hace más de 10 años, cuenta con apoyo popular, cuenta con una base democrática que le da el soporte necesario para continuar ahí.

De igual manera Hugo Chávez ha convertido en su enemigo mediático a los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, si, enemigo mediático, ya que en la práctica esto no existe, Estados Unidos es su principal cliente y Venezuela se ha constituído como su segundo proveedor de crudo y no solamente eso sino que el precio final es uno de los más bajos, inclusive en estos últimos meses ha aprovechado la reducción en la producción de crudo de Arabia Saudita para tomar ellos ese parte del mercado norteamericano, lo dijo bien Alan García en la última cumbre del UNASUR, … “Sr. Chávez, que tanto le preocupan los Estados Unidos si Usted le vende todo su petróleo” … en alusión a la crítica de Chávez a las bases norteamericanas aprobadas por Colombia en su territorio.

¿Que es un bufón? ¿un payaso? seguro que sí, basta con recordar la vez cuando el Rey de España Juan Carlos lo mandó a callar con el mundialmente conocido ¡porque no te callas! luego él salió muy altisonante (como siempre, claro está, cuando ya se encuentra solo) a minimizar al Rey y a decirle que la colonia se acabó, etc, etc, etc. Luego lo veríamos dándole la mano y abrazándolo, sinceramente un payaso.

Igual lo ha hecho con el Presidente de Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, a quien a insultado a diestra y siniestra, lo ha llamado enemigo y después lo ha abrazado, lo ha elogiado, ¿quién entiende a Chávez? si hacemos un paralelo con los primeros párrafos de este tema podemos entender algo de esta actitud, él busca a la prensa y la prensa se deja encontrar facilmente, el necesita de la prensa y la prensa como prostituta barata se entrega a él, es como una relación de co dependencia donde a pesar del daño mutuo no pueden vivir separados y menos ser indiferentes.

Lo cierto es que Hugo Chávez es un Presidente democrático, es de la nueva casta de tiranos que aprendieron de Fujimori y que han perfeccionado sus tiranías para mantenerse insertados en la comunidad mundial y seguir siendo considerados Presidentes democráticos con un mandato popular legalmente fidedigno y lo suficientemente sólido como para seguir con su Plan por muchos años más, pero, al igual que Fujimori, no tardarán en caer porque el absolutismo lleva a la corrupción, basta que un valiente se decida a hablar y contar lo que sucede en las entrañas de esos gobiernos, asi cayó Fujimori, asi deben caer estos neo tiranos.

Algunas opiniones:

Juan Manuel Cao: Pensandolo bien

 Enrisco:

Carta abierta a Juanes.

 El Nuevo Herald: Estados Unidos favorece concierto de Juanes en la Plaza de la Revolucion

 Penultimos Dias: El Concierto de Juanes en La Habana se complica

La opinion de los “santiagueros” que hacen este blog: 

Concierto por la Paz?

Estaran los cubanos “de afuera”?

Parece un absurdo que el concierto de Juanes por la paz no incluya a figuras emblematicas de la musica cubana como Willi Chirino, Gloria Estefan, Olga Guillot y otros.

Ademas ese concierto deberia terminar con un gran homenaje a Celia Cruz.

Y Darsi, Biscet, y los otros prisioneros de conciencia, deben estar alli para oirlo, como hombres libres.

Entonces creeremos en un Concierto por la Paz.

“Las dos muchachas estaban mas seguras en Corea del Norte que en un avion solas con Bill Clinton”

Un Republicano Anonimo.

During a policy review in 1996 into the handling of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena sighting reports received by the Ministry of Defence, a study was undertaken to determine the potential value, if any, of such reports to Defence Intelligence. Consistent with Ministry of Defence policy, the available data was studied principally to ascertain whether there is any evidence of a threat to the UK, and secondly, should the opportunity arise, to identify any potential military technologies of interest.

The Ministry of Defence has released this report in response to a Freedom of Information request and we are pleased to now make it available to a wider audience via the MOD Freedom of Information Publication Scheme. Where indicated information is withheld in accordance with Section 26 (Defence), Section 27 (International Relations) and Section 40 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Programa peruano de Humor.

Y ahora Correa dice que eso es mentira de Uribe, y lo desafia a  mostrar que eso es verdad.

Pss!! Correa! el que dice eso es el Mono Jojoy, no es Uribe!!!

Hoy:

Si quieres ver algunas cosas comunes entre el regimen de Teheran y el de La Habana, echale una ojeada a este trailer de Persepolis…

Como ves, hay de todo lo que que tenemos en Cuba:

-negacion de la existencia de prisioneros politicos.

-bolsa negra

-represion que llega hasta a las cosas mas sencillas de la vida.

Parece incrível, mas apesar de ser brasileira e morar na cidade de um dos maiores estádios do mundo eu não torço para nenhum time de futebol. Em geral, mesmo quem não acompanha, escolhe um time qualquer, seja por influência da família ou para não ficar de fora da roda de amigos. Eu, simplesmente, decidi fazer graça. Quando alguém insiste que tenho que ter um time, eu digo logo: torço pelo Bonsucesso.

Diz a Wikipedia, que o clube já foi finalista do Campeonato Carioca da 1º Divisão, em 1924, quando foi derrotado pelo Vasco na final por 1 a 0, sagrando-se vice-campeão carioca. Quanto orgulho! Hoje em dia, a “força Rubro Anil”, não é nem figurante em nenhum campeonato de expressão e aí, que é perfeito para mim, que passo bem longe do futebol.

A explicação para isso é muito racional: sempre percebi articulações nos bastidores, no sentido de comprar resultados e criar calendários, bem como jogos rentáveis, principalmente nas Copas do Mundo. Claro que o torcedor no auge do seu fervor não vai dar o “braço a torcer” para o óbvio, mas assim como eu, o jornalista canadense Declan Hill deu e foi além: acaba de lançar o livro “The Fix Soccer and organized crime”. Não existe ainda tradução, mas seria algo como Armação do futebol e o crime organizado.

Entre algumas articulações, Hill, descobriu que máfia do futebol se concentra nas bolsas de apostas asiáticas para “fabricar” os resultados, entre eles, quatro jogos do Mundial de 2006, na Alemanha. Incluindo o que fez de Ronaldo o maior artilheiro da história das Copas, com a vitória da seleção canarinho sobre o Gana por 3 a 0. O combinado com alguns jogadores ganeses, conforme apurou o autor, era o Brasil vencer por dois ou mais gols de diferença.

Enquanto a Fifa apurar o caso (se é que não sabem e não estão envolvidos, claro), vai se aproximando a Copa da África do Sul. E eu, como dos outros anos, enquanto o povo brada “que é brasileiro com muito orgulho e muito amor”, aproveito a folga do jogo para tirar um soninho, ou ler algum livro atrasado na gaveta. Até porque a nossa pátria tinha que ter era luva de boxes nas mãos (para lutar por direitos que nos são roubados, inclusive os de lazer, vide a compra dos resultados dos jogos) e não chuteiras nos pés.

A reportagem completa sobre o livro, você pode encontrar aqui.

Esto no tiene desperdicios.

Ese video fue puesto en youtube el 4 de Junio, ya todos estaban claros de por donde venia el hombre…

Los que hicieron este video estaban muy claros de lo que iba a suceder…(de la 2 a la cuatro son medio dificiles para los que no conocemos los personajes politicos hondurenos), pero miren esta quinta  y ultima parte:

Se la comieron!  Y a veces creemos que  los cubanos somos los unicos con un humor volao….

Apoyo al Congreso en Honduras

Reproducimos algunos comentarios y enlaces interesantes sobre la situacion en Honduras:

Yoani titula su post de hoy “De gorilas y caudillos”

De Juan Antonio Blanco, excelente comentario en:  “Pescando en Aguas Revueltas” 

Diversos medios de prensa de muchos paises latinoamericanos coincide en que la situacion es confusa, y que el primero en romper la constitucionalidad del pais fue Zelaya con el objetivo de implantar el Poder Vitalicio, caracteristico del Narcicismo Comunismo del Siglo XXI. Muchos coinciden ademas en la poca moral de los que mas critican al Congreso de Honduras por haber roto una democracia que ellos mismos no respetan.

Una  pequena muestra puede encontrarse aqui:

Bolivia:

Golpe en Honduras? (asi, con signos de interrogacion)

Venezuela:

http://www.correodelcaroni.com/content/view/130350/107/

Nicaragua:

Hipocresia y dobles estandares

Mexico:

El golpe de Honduras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian socialism

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,^[6] so that direct control of thesemeans of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”^[7]

Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers’ councils, municipalities, citizens’ assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy.^[8] Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable.^[9]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,^[10]mutualism,^[11] social ecology,^[12] autonomism and council communism).^[13] Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism^[14] and in particular socialist anarchism.^[15][16]

[edit]Overview

Noam Chomsky, a noted libertarian socialist.

Libertarian socialism is an ideology with diverse interpretations, though some general commonalities can be found in its many incarnations. Its proponents advocate a worker-oriented system of distribution that radically departs from capitalist economics (socialism).^[17] They proposed that this economic system be executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism.^[18] Adherents attempt to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, because they view capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual freedom.^[19]

The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French wordlibertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.^[20] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.^[21] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian “must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.”^[22]

In a chapter recounting the history of libertarian socialism, radical economist Robin Hahnel relates that thus far the period where libertarian socialism has had its greatest impact was at the end of the 19th century through the first four decades of the twentieth century.

“Early in the twentieth century, libertarian socialism was as powerful a force as social democracy and communism. The Libertarian International – founded at the Congress of Saint Imier a few days after the split between Marxist and libertarians at the congress of the Socialist International held in The Hague in 1872 – competed successfully against social democrats and communists alike for the loyalty of anticapitalist activists, revolutionaries, workers, unions and political parties for over fifty years. Libertarian socialists played a major role in the Russian revolutions of 1905and 1917. Libertarian socialists played a dominant role in the Mexican Revolution of 1911. Twenty years after World War I was over, libertarian socialists were still strong enough to spearhead the social revolution that swept across Republican Spain in 1936 and 1937.”^[23]

[edit]Anti-capitalism

Part of the Politics series on Socialism

Currents[show]

Key topics and issues[show]

Organizations and people[show]

Religious socialism[show]

Related topics[show]

v • d • e

Libertarian socialists assert that when power is exercised, as exemplified by the economic, social, or physical dominance of one individual over another, the burden of proof is always on the authoritarian to justify their action as legitimate when taken against its effect of narrowing the scope of human freedom.^[24] Typical examples of legitimate exercise of power would include the use of physical force to rescue someone from being injured by an oncoming vehicle, or self-defense. Libertarian socialists typically oppose rigid and stratified structures of authority, be they political, economic, or social.^[25]

Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power, that an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few and the centralization of political power both reduce the bargaining power—and thus the liberty of the other individuals in society.^[26] To put it another way, capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles concentrate economic power in the hands of those who own the most capital. Libertarian socialism aims to distribute power, and thus freedom, more equally amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and free-market libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one’s degree of freedom is affected by one’s economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter focus on freedom of choice. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize “free creativity” in a society in preference to “free enterprise.”^[27]

Libertarian socialists believe if freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy, voluntary federation, and popular autonomy in all aspects of life,^[28] including physical communities and economic enterprises.

Many libertarian socialists argue that large-scale voluntary associations should manage industrial manufacture, while workers retain rights to the individual products of their labor.^[29] As such, they see a distinction between the concepts of “private property” and “personal possession”. Whereas “private property” grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, and regardless of its productive capacity, “possession” grants no rights to things that are not in use.^[30]

[edit]Opposition to the state

Part of the Politics series on

Anarchism

Schools of thought[show]

Theory · Practice[show]

Issues[show]

History[show]

Culture[show]

Economics[show]

By region[show]

Lists[show]

Related topics[show]

Anarchism Portal Politics portal

v • d • e

Libertarian socialists regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression, leading many to oppose the state.

In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary associations (usually collectives, communes, cooperatives, commons, or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations.^[31] Spanish anarchism is a major example of such federations in practice. Contemporary examples of libertarian socialist organizational and decision-making models in practice include a number of anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements^[32] including: Zapatista Councils of Good Government and the Global Indymedia network (which covers 45 countries on 6 continents). There are also many examples of indigenous societies around the world whose political and economic systems can be accurately described as anarchist or libertarian socialist, each of which is unique and uniquely suited to the culture that birthed it.^[33] For libertarians, that diversity of practice within a framework of common principles is proof of the vitality of those principles and of their flexibility and strength.

Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example. Supporters often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of the scientific method comes from its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions, rather than dogma and predetermined predictions.

Although critics claim that they are avoiding questions they cannot answer, libertarian socialists believe that a methodological approach to exploration is the best way to achieve their social goals. To them, dogmatic approaches to social organization are doomed to failure; and thus reject Marxist notions oflinear and inevitable historical progression. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, “I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal” (The London Years, 1956).

Because libertarian socialism encourages exploration and embraces a diversity of ideas rather than forming a compact movement, there have arisen inevitable controversies over individuals who describe themselves as libertarian socialists but disagree with some of the core principles of libertarian socialism. For example, Peter Hain interprets libertarian socialism as favoring radical decentralization of power without going as far as the complete abolition of the state^[34] and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky supports dismantling all forms of unjustified social or economic power, while also emphasizing that state intervention should be supported as a temporary protection while oppressive structures remain in existence.

Proponents are known for opposing the existence of states or government and refusing to participate in coercive state institutions. Indeed, in the past many refused to swear oaths in court or to participate in trials, even when they faced imprisonment^[35] or deportation.^[36]

[edit]Violent and non-violent means

Errico Malatesta, 1891

Some libertarian socialists see violent revolution as necessary in the abolition of capitalist society. Along with many others, Errico Malatesta argued that the use of violence was necessary; as he put it in Umanità Nova (no. 125, September 6, 1921):

It is our aspiration and our aim that everyone should become socially conscious and effective; but to achieve this end, it is necessary to provide all with the means of life and for development, and it is therefore necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies these means to the workers.^[37]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued in favor of a non-violent revolution. The progression towards violence in anarchism stemmed, in part, from the massacres of some of the communes inspired by the ideas of Proudhon and others. Many anarcho-communists began to see a need for revolutionary violence to counteract the violence inherent in both capitalism and government.^[38]

[edit]Political roots

As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie stated in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism has:

…its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)

That is, anarchism arose as a cross between socialism and liberalism, incorporating the anti-capitalist attitude of socialists and the anti-statist, what would today be called libertarian, attitude of classical liberalism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is often considered the father of modern anarchism, coined the phrase “Property is theft” to describe part of his view on the complex nature of ownership in relation to freedom. When he said property is theft, he was referring to the capitalist who he believed stole profit from laborers. For Proudhon, the capitalist’s employee was “subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience.”^[39]

Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.^[40] Outside the United States, “libertarian” generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies.^[41] For these reasons the term “libertarian socialism” is today almost synonymous with anarchism, outside of the US the term “libertarian socialism” would be considered redundant.

Back in the United States, Henry George spearheaded the Single Tax Movement, which sought socialism via progressive taxation, with tax only on natural resources. This might be seen as a predecessor to libertarian socialism trends there.

Libertarian socialism has its roots in both classical liberalism and socialism, though it is often in conflict with liberalism (especially neoliberalism and right-libertarianism) and authoritarianState socialism simultaneously. While libertarian socialism has roots in both socialism and liberalism, different forms have different levels of influence from the two traditions. For instancemutualist anarchism is more influenced by liberalism while communist and syndicalist anarchism are more influenced by socialism. It is interesting to note, however, that mutualist anarchism has its origins in 18th and 19th century European socialism (such as Fourierian socialism)^[42][43] while communist and syndicalist anarchism has its earliest origins in early 18th century liberalism (such as the French Revolution).^[44]

[edit]Conflict with Marxism

Mikhail Bakunin, 1814-1876.

In rejecting both capitalism and the state, some libertarian socialists align themselves with anarchists in opposition to both capitalist representative democracy and to authoritarian forms of Marxism. Although anarchists and Marxists share an ultimate goal of a stateless society, anarchists criticise most Marxists for advocating a transitional phase under which the state is used to achieve this aim. Nonetheless, libertarian Marxist tendencies such asautonomist Marxism and council communism have historically been intertwined with the anarchist movement. Anarchist movements have come into conflict with both capitalist and Marxist forces, sometimes at the same time, as in the Spanish Civil War, though as in that war Marxists themselves are often divided in support or opposition to anarchism. Other political persecutions under bureaucratic parties have resulted in a strong historical antagonism between anarchists and libertarian Marxists on the one hand and Leninist Marxists and their derivatives such as Maoists on the other. In recent history, however, libertarian socialists have repeatedly formed temporary alliances with Marxist-Leninist groups for the purposes of protest against institutions they both reject.

Part of this antagonism can be traced to the International Workingmen’s Association, the First International, a congress of radical workers, where Mikhail Bakunin, who was fairly representative of anarchist views, and Karl Marx, whom anarchists accused of being an “authoritarian”, came into conflict on various issues. Bakunin’s viewpoint on the illegitimacy of the state as an institution and the role of electoral politics was starkly counterposed to Marx’s views in the First International. Marx and Bakunin’s disputes eventually led to Marx taking control of the First International and expelling Bakunin and his followers from the organization. This was the beginning of a long-running feud and schism between libertarian socialists and what they call “authoritarian communists”, or alternatively just “authoritarians”.

Some Marxists have formulated views that closely resemble syndicalism, and thus express more affinity with anarchist ideas. Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism such as the council communism of Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky’s Notes on Anarchism,^[45] he suggests the possibility “that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a ‘vanguard’ party, or a State bureaucracy.”

Autonomist Marxism, Neo-Marxism and Situationist theory are also regarded as being anti-authoritarian variants of Marxism that are firmly within the libertarian socialist tradition. Similarly,William Morris is regarded as both a libertarian socialist and a Marxist.^{[citation needed]}

[edit]Notable libertarian socialist tendencies

[edit]Mutualism

Proudhon and his children, by Gustave Courbet (1865).

Mutualism is a political and economic theory largely associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon was in favor of private ownership of the means of production for small enterprises, but in large scale enterprises supported replacing wage labour by workers’ co-operatives, arguing “it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society.”^[46] Mutualists believe that a free labor market would allow for conditions of equal income in proportion to exerted labor.^[47] As Jonathan Beecher puts it, Proudhon’s aim was to, “emancipate labor from the constraints imposed by capital”.^[48]

Proudhon supported individual possession of land rather than community ownership. However, Proudhon believed that an individual only had a right to land while he was using or occupying it. If the individual ceases doing so, it reverts to unowned land.^[49]Mutualists hold a labor theory of value, arguing that in exchange labor should always be worth “the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility,”^[47] and considering anything less to be exploitation, theft of labor, or usury.

Mutualists oppose the institutions by which individuals gain income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe the income received through these activities is not in direct accord with labor spent.^[47] In place of these capitalist institutions they advocatelabor-owned cooperative firms and associations.^[50] Mutualists advocate mutual banks, owned by the workers, that do not charge interest on secured loans. Most mutualists believe that anarchy should be achieved gradually rather than through revolution.^[51]

Worker cooperatives such as the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation follow an economic model similar to that of mutualism. The model followed by the corporation WL Gore and Associates, inventor of Gore-Tex fabrics, is also similar to mutualism as there is no chain of command and salaries are determined collectively by the workers.

G.D.H. Cole’s guild socialism was similar to mutualism.^[52] Today, mutualism’s stress on worker association is similar to the more developed modern theory of Participatory Economics, although Participatory Economists do not believe in markets.

Mutualist anarchist ideas continue to have influence today, even if indirectly. Many modern day cooperatives are influenced directly or indirectly by economic mutualism that became popular in the late 19th century.^[53]

Some individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, were influenced by Proudhon’s Mutualism, but unlike Proudhon, they did not call for “association” in large enterprises.^[54]

[edit]Anarchist communism

Anarchist communism was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International, by Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta, Andrea Costa, and other ex-Mazzinian republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences from standard anarchism explicit until after the latter’s death.^[55] In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International (which was actually held in a forest outside Florence, due to police activity), they declared the principles of anarcho-communism, beginning with:

“The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. The federal congress at Florence has eloquently demonstrated the opinion of the Italian International on this point…”

This report was made in an article by Malatesta and Cafiero in the (Swiss) Jura federation’s bulletin later that year. Cafiero notes, in Anarchie et Communisme, that private property in the product of labor will lead to unequal accumulation of capital, and therefore undesirable class distinctions.

Anarcho-communists hold that the liberation of the individual, as well as the abolition of wage slavery and the State, requires the introduction of a free distribution economy, and therefore the abolition of the market.^[56] In this belief they are contrasted with some anarchists and libertarian socialists who advocate collective ownership with market elements and sometimes barter. Anarcho-communists assert that a gift economy can be operated by collectives through direct democracy.

As Peter Kropotkin put it, “We must recognize, and loudly proclaim, that every one, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, THE RIGHT TO LIVE, and that society is bound to share amongst all, without exception, the means of existence at its disposal.” (Conquest of Bread ch. 3)

[edit]Anarcho-syndicalism

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labor movement.^[57] Anarcho-syndicalists view labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are:

1. Workers’ solidarity
2. Direct action
3. Workers’ self-management

Flag used by Anarcho-syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists.

Workers’ solidarity means that anarcho-syndicalists believe all workers—no matter their race, gender, or ethnic group—are in a similar situation in regard to their boss (class consciousness). Furthermore, it means that, within capitalism, any gains or losses made by some workers from or to bosses will eventually affect all workers. Therefore, to liberate themselves, all workers must support one another in their class conflict.

Anarcho-syndicalists believe that only direct action—that is, action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position—will allow workers to liberate themselves.^[58]

Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers’ organizations (the organizations that struggle against the wage system, which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society) should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or “business agents”; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves.

Rudolf Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the anarcho-syndicalist movement. He outlined a view of the origins of the movement, what it sought, and why it was important to the future of labor in his 1938 pamphlet Anarcho-Syndicalism.

The International Workers Association is an international anarcho-syndicalist federation of various labor unions from different countries. The Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajoplayed and still plays a major role in the Spanish labor movement. It was also an important force in the Spanish Civil War.

[edit]Council communism

Council communism was a radical Left movement originating in Germany and the Netherlands in the 1920s. Its primary organization was the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD). Council communism continues today as a theoretical and activist position within Marxism, and also within libertarian socialism. The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of Social democracy and Leninist communism, is that workers’ councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural and legitimate form of working class organisation and government power. This view is opposed to the reformist and Bolshevik stress on vanguard parties, parliaments, or the State.

The core principle of council communism is that the state and the economy should be managed by workers’ councils, composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run “bureaucratic socialism”. They also oppose the idea of a “revolutionary party”, since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers’ democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers’ councils.

The Russian word for council is “soviet,” and during the early years of the revolution worker’s councils were politically significant in Russia. It was to take advantage of the aura of workplace power that the word became used by Lenin for various political organs. Indeed, the name “Supreme Soviet,” by which the parliament was called; and that of the Soviet Union itself make use of this terminology, but they do not imply any decentralization.

Furthermore, council communists held a critique of the Soviet Union as a capitalist state, believing that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia became a “bourgeois revolution” when a party bureaucracy replaced the old feudal aristocracy. Although most felt the Russian Revolution was working class in character, they believed that, since capitalist relations still existed (because the workers had no say in running the economy), the Soviet Union ended up as a state capitalist country, with the state replacing the individual capitalist. Thus, council communists support workers’ revolutions, but oppose one-party dictatorships.

Council communists also believed in diminishing the role of the party to one of agitation and propaganda, rejected all participation in elections or parliament, and argued that workers should leave the reactionary trade unions and form one big revolutionary union.

[edit]Within the political mainstream

There was a strong libertarian current in the British labour movement and the term “libertarian socialist” has been applied to a number of democratic socialists, including some prominent members of the British Labour Party. The Socialist League was formed in 1885 by William Morris and others critical of the authoritarian socialism of the Social Democratic Federation. It was involved in the New Unionism, the rank and file union militancy of the 1880s-90s which anticipated syndicalism in some key ways (Tom Mann, a New Unionist leader, was one of the first British syndicalists). The Socialist League was dominated by anarchists by the 1890s.^[59]

The Independent Labour Party, formed at that time, drew more on the Non-Conformist religious traditions in the British working class than on Marxist theory, and had a libertarian strain. Others in the tradition of the ILP, and described as libertarian socialists, have been Nye Bevan, Michael Foot, Robin Cook, and most importantly, G. D. H. Cole. Labour minister Peter Hainhas written in support of libertarian socialism, identifying an axis involving a “bottom-up vision of socialism, with anarchists at the revolutionary end and democratic socialists [such as himself] at its reformist end”, as opposed to the axis of state socialism with Marxist-Leninists at the revolutionary end and social democrats at the reformist end.^[60] Defined in this way, libertarian socialism in the contemporary political mainstream is distinguished from modern social democracy principally by its political decentralism rather than by its economics. Katja Kipping of Dresden, Germany is an example of a contemporary libertarian socialist politician operating within a mainstream government.

[edit]Within the New Left

The emergence of the New Left in the 1950s and 1960s led to a revival of interest in libertarian socialism.^[61] The New Left’s critique of the Old Left’s authoritarianism was associated with a strong interest in personal liberty, autonomy (see the thinking of Cornelius Castoriadis) and led to a rediscovery of older socialist traditions, such as left communism, council communism, and the Industrial Workers of the World. The New Left also led to a revival of anarchism. Journals like Radical America and Black Mask in America, Solidarity, Big Flame and Democracy & Nature, succeeded by The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy,^[62] in the UK, introduced a range of left libertarian ideas to a new generation. Social ecology, autonomism and, more recently, participatory economics (parecon), and Inclusive Democracy emerged from this.

[edit]Social ecology

Social ecology is closely related to the work and ideas of Murray Bookchin and influenced by anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Social ecologists assert that the present ecological crisis has its roots in human social problems, and that the domination of human-over-nature stems from the domination of human-over-human.^[63]

Politically, social ecologists advocate a network of directly democratic citizens’ assemblies organized in a confederal fashion. This approach is called Libertarian Municipalism. Economically, social ecologists favour libertarian communism and the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”^{[citation needed]}

[edit]Libertarian socialism in modern times

Libertarian socialists in the early 21st century have been involved in the squatter movement; social centers; infoshops; anti-poverty groups such as OCAP and Food Not Bombs; tenants’unions; housing cooperatives; intentional communities generally and egalitarian communities; anti-sexist organizing; grassroots media initiatives; digital media and computer activism; experiments in participatory economics; anti-racist and anti-fascist groups like Anti-Racist Action and Anti-Fascist Action; activist groups protecting the rights of immigrants and promoting the free movement of people, such as the No Border network and No One is Illegal; worker co-operatives, countercultural and artist groups; and the peace movement etc.

Libertarian Socialists have, also, an MP in Turkish Parliament; Ufuk Uras, selected in 2007 General Elections in Turkey.^[64]

[edit]Criticism of libertarian socialism

Some capitalist libertarians argue that freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another, and that promoting equality (as valued by socialism) will inherently require restrictions on liberty (as valued by libertarianism), forcing the society to choose one or the other as their primary value. The Kurt Vonnegut story “Harrison Bergeron“, in which equality is enforced by imposing physical and mental handicaps on overachievers, can be seen as illustrating this point through hyperbole (though Vonnegut’s own belief in socialism is a point of interest).^[65]

Libertarian socialists typically dismiss the perceived contradiction between freedom and equality as a red herring. Noam Chomsky states that, “human talents vary considerably, within a fixed framework that is characteristic of the species and that permits ample scope for creative work, including the appreciation of the creative achievements of others. This should be a matter of delight rather than a condition to be abhorred.”^[66]

Other libertarian philosophers (often referred to as liberals, in the classical sense) such as Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, stress that liberty is a state of affairs in which one is free from the unjustified aggression of others, and that any understanding of liberty must be grounded in natural rights – and especially property rights. Thus, they argue that absolute freedom for all is not a contradiction, and that the abolition of natural rights (including property rights) would, by definition, also be the abolition of liberty.^[67][68][69] As Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, “The continued existence of society depends upon private property.”^[70]

Libertarian socialists believe that this criticism stems from a misconception that conflates simple possession with private property as a legal and social institution. For libertarian socialists, the latter produces exploitation and oppression (Proudhon’s “theft” and “despotism”) and so reduces individual freedom for the working class to the ability to change masters.^[71] As such, they argue, liberalism fails to understand how private property undermines liberty.^[72] For libertarian socialists, “[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst.”^[73]

[edit]Libertarian socialist periodicals

• Against the Grain: a libertarian socialist newspaper (USA 1976-1978)^[74]
• Anarcho-Syndicalist Review (US)
• Big Flame (UK, 1960s-70s)
• Comment: New Perspectives in Libertarian Thought (US, 1960s, edited by Murray Bookchin)^[75]
• Democracy & Nature (US/UK) – succeeded by The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (belongs to the direct democratic, libertarian socialist and autonomy traditions)^[76]
• Contemporary Issues-Dinge der Zeit (English and German language “magazine for a democracy of content”, 1947-1997 published by Joseph Weber, Murray Bookchin’s mentor)^[77]
• Flash Point: a libertarian socialist newsjournal (Saskatoon, Canada, 1970s)^[74]
• Freedom newspaper (United Kingdom)
• Heatwave (UK, 1960s)^[78]
• Leeds Other Paper (UK, 1974-1991)^[79]
• Libertarian Communism
• Organized Thoughts (US, 1990s)^[80]
• Rebelles (Quebec, 1990s)^[81]
• Red and Black Notes (Detroit, 1990s-, features Cajo Brendel, Cornelius Castoriadis, Martin Glaberman, CLR James, Larry Gambone and others)^[82]
• Red & Black Revolution (Publication of The Workers Solidarity Movement, Ireland)
• Root and Branch (Cambridge, Mass., USA, 1970-, featured work of Paul Mattick and others)^[83]
• Socialisme ou Barbarie (France)
• Solidarity (UK, 1960s-70s)^[84]
• Der Sozialist, (Germany, 1900s, co-edited by Gustav Landauer and Margarethe Hardegger)^[85]
• Tegen de Stroom (1990s, Netherlands)^[86]
• The Commune (UK, 2008-) ^[87]
• Workers Solidarity (Publication of the Workers Solidarity Movement, Ireland)
• Zenit Sweden, 1958-1970 (Magazine by Syndikalistiska Grupprörelsen)
• Turnusol (Turkey, 2008~)^[88]

[edit]See also

(sometimes called socialist anarchism,^[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism^[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved (or at least drastically reduced in scope), and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.^[5]