Blueprints On Making A Swing

The left

Someone suggested that socialism is dying. Exaggerated, but there is no doubt that we need one very different from the past

Data

On Sunday, the left won the elections in Greece and recently also in Portugal, but not so loose. In contrast, the Socialists in Spain are on the defensive, the British Labour lost direction and lost emotion and the geographic heart of Western Europe-Germany, France and Italy, is dominated by the right, and it confirmed the recent German elections. The leadership of Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi even seem to have no competitors viable. In Eastern Europe, and in reaction to the Soviet era, the left is particularly weak.

In Latin America, Brazil is the country that stands out for its dynamic and ambitious national project, there remains a pretty good left-wing government led by Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. On the outskirts of Brazil dominate various shades of left but all face serious problems, from Venezuela to Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Paraguay, and distance, Chile. It is difficult to classify the Kirchner of Argentina, because as is typical of Peronism, their governments have items across the political spectrum. Anyway, in contrast, the focus clearly on the right region ranges from Colombia to Mexico to Honduras in the midst of the coup.

And the U.S.?

For a while no one was being asked where to put the United States politically. Since the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the beginning of the Cold War, the U.S. government and American political world were, by definition, the homeland of anti-communism and the right. With the U.S. victory over the USSR after a struggle that lasted nearly half a century, and the disappearance of the latter, the situation changed. But with the triumph in 2000 of George W. Bush and his team of neoconservative Republicans, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, among others, all eager to realize the project called "New American Century, it reaffirmed the United States as the political and intellectual thought and world politics right. However, with the surprising electoral victory of Barack Obama in 2008, and its platform for social issues highlighted by any other (see his autobiography Dreams from my father and that specifically includes its political project, The Audacity hope), and appointments of the Puerto Rican people like Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the United States today can no longer be simply classified as the geographical heart or ideological right. If the above is added to the ferocity with which Republicans and conservative Americans are attacking Obama proposed to reform the health system to the extent of calling it socialist, then we can conclude that, in terms of the history of American policy, Obama is leading a management center. Where we



Seen in the distance, the political landscape on both sides of the Atlantic seem to indicate that there is a kind of a tie: the right dominates in Western Europe and the center-left in America. Then, depending on preferences, the glass may be half full or half empty. However, there are some Observers from the European scene have no hesitation in pointing to the Conservatives as the rising force otherwise, how come today, despite the anti-is no longer the political force that moved half a world-ago 20 years that brought down the Berlin Wall and that capitalism is again going through one of its worst crisis as a result of their abuses and excesses, the right wing parties are firm and even countries as they advance in power as Germany, France or Italy? In an analysis by Steven Erlanger in the International Herald Tribune (29 September), the author hypothesized even the death of socialism.

Erlanger's question is sustained by an argument in European countries of advanced capitalism, large claims were socialist flags after the Second World War and became assimilated to the political mainstream, ie, are now issues already ceased to be disputed that the right policy because the fought, and accepted and assimilated. Such is the case of public health systems, unemployment insurance, pensions, environmental protection and even greater supervision of major financial players.

other hand, the European left today just do not have leaders of weight, and other charismatic figures, however, is full of something very typical of this current from the very beginning of socialism: the internal divisions and personal squabbles that lead to those closest groups or programs, ie, the "fellow travelers," the enemy to be fought with more courage instead of investing time , resources and energy to face an opponent who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

What to do?

This subtitle was in 1902 the title of one of the most famous of Vladimir Ilich Lenin (inspired, in turn, in a Russian novel.) At the beginning of last century, when capitalism was not yet fully developed, Lenin, impatient, suggested to his fellow left- do not let the change process to run its natural pace slow and erratic and act on it: form a party of professional revolutionaries who would force the situation, they were the catalyst for a story that Marxism meant default. If it was inevitable that socialism replacing capitalism, then the sooner the better. His proposal was successful and she came out, for better and for worse, the Soviet Union and all that it was derived.

Today, for the left what to do? requires a different response and largely opposed. Lenin must be taken not only the idea of \u200b\u200bletting the inertia dominate and individuals must be willing to act, but nothing more. In contrast to Lenin, is now obliged under the assumption that the course of history is not written in advance or that someone has the key to knowing what will this future and therefore has the right to impose its project to others even by force. On the other hand, the history exists and is full of errors and horrors of both the "real socialism" as the others, and recognize them not to repeat is a moral and a practical necessity. In the past he should understand but do not justify their dark sides.

The struggle for power is always brutal, but there must be limits. History, the Left must accept that the quest for social democracy without democracy policy is to risk a return to incubate the egg of the snake. A left without a real commitment to ethics in political practice-the same within its own organization in competition with opponents at the ballot box, "just not worth the effort and pain anyone.

In Greece, George Papandreou's Socialists won largely by the corruption of the government open its adversaries, Kostas Karamanlis, but the history of these socialists is not free of that sin. And here is a central point: the corruption of the left in many countries, certainly in Mexico, is unacceptable morally and practically, it is an egregious and inexcusable error give in the privileged realm of fair and honest about opponents who have no historical title to claim it as their own.

In conclusion, there is the theoretical challenge. Marxism and its variants provided to the left with a holistic understanding of the world that eventually led to not look directly at reality, to the point that if it did not fit the theory, a theory was really demanding, so much the worse for reality. In contrast, non-Marxist social science, from economics to sociology, he was never quite sure of his premises or conclusions and therefore better able to deal with reality. So capitalism also understood better their faults, and acted for diminish-not to eliminate them, "something that did not Marxist intellectual fathers of the left.

In short, inequality and social injustice are present in all societies, even in the most prosperous, and that fact alone makes it indispensable to the left, but not any left, but with a capacity to learn from the past and above all, to have a real commitment to their own values.

Where Can I Watch Digital Playground Online

Our current war and the possible

It would be nice to start discussing the usefulness of continuing or changing the direction of the current drug war. Priorities



Since December 2006 the Mexican government has insisted the military in a war against drug trafficking but it is time to ask: does it make sense to continue it with the same intensity and direction? Only six years so far, and until the middle of last month, casualties related to organized crime accounted for about 14 thousand (El Universal, Sept. 11).

Arguably, it should raise or redefine the "war on drugs" because the dead and many, limited resources and there are more urgent and legitimate alternative to reverse the collective effort that is now used against the drug cartels. First, it is better engage the country in a war against poverty fund or the poor quality of its education system, or back sheet, could do with a battle against unemployment, against environmental destruction and even to transform the growing informal economy into the official. It would be really popular a genuine national crusade against public corruption and insecurity, that is, crime that affects the ordinary citizen, and that there is drug trafficking. In addition, possible war fronts are not lacking, which are scarce resources and the will to carry them out. Therefore we must take care of priorities, because maybe in the battle against drug cartels we're in a conflict that is entirely or even genuinely ours and, worse, one where it is not possible a real victory effective. The essence



successfully fought a real war means that society must be willing to bear to bring in maximum stress all its social and institutional relationships. That kind of war would mean that the country's leadership had developed a plan with a clear idea of \u200b\u200bmeans and goals, determine exactly who is the adversary and why and what are the chances of defeat. For its part, society should accept a high degree of responsibility, personal and collective sacrifice, and commitment to one of the largest companies can impose on a community. In short, put one in a war is a decision that must be capitalized and made with full awareness and responsibility.

The drug group as the great enemy

In principle there is no doubt that Mexico as a country would be better against oneself and the world if the Family, the Gulf Cartel, the Juarez Cartel and the rest of the drug trafficking organizations were already history. However, specialists in the field and own common sense tells us that as long as external sources of demand and, therefore, financing, especially if that source is the most powerful country in the world, the struggle against the Mexican drug trade have the same weakness that occurs, for example, when an army combat armed groups that have their main source of supply and support in another country. United States, with the help of NATO can not defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan just because it can find shelter and resources in Pakistan. For Mexico, the external factor in their efforts to eliminate organized drug trafficking is a major obstacle, as their ability to press and force Washington to act is infinitely more limited than Washington to pressure Islamabad.

The Mérida Initiative is that the Mexican government made a major historical commitment of the U.S. government to really act against demand and against the supply of arms and transfer money to Mexican criminal groups. However, for historical or political reasons the U.S. authorities can not prevent its citizens from acquiring weapons and some of them, transferred to Mexican drug cartels. Reviewing budget items, according to a paper by Eric Olson and Robert Donnelly, that, so far, the two-thirds of the amount the U.S. government invests in the fight against drugs are designed to combat the supply and only third to face the very source of evil: the demand ("Confronting the Challenges of Organized Crime in Mexico and Latin America", 2009, Mexico Institute, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC). Logic



Felipe Calderon launched the army to war against drug traffickers as part of a move to several bands. As in many other stratagems, one of its core objectives-perhaps-seems to have been to create a situation which caused the public to stand on the side of the "strong leader" and determined. And in that sense the move seems to have borne fruit, since 83 percent of Mexicans support the use of military against the drug cartels (Pew Center poll, published on September 27.) However, to Olson and Donnelly, as for many other specialists, the fact that "rarely has a victory been possible in this type of war, especially when the demand for illegal products is high. "

The alternative could be, experts say, simply use the army to selectively limit the influence of organized crime, increase the cost of business which operates as in other fields less violent and spectacular but more effective: to prevent money laundering, reform or recreate new institutional framework, police, prosecutors, courts-educate or re-educate potential consumers and, above all, make activity of the Mexican authorities is conditional on U.S. progress in effective control of arms, movements of money and a real low demand for drugs in their society. Possibility



A German researcher, a specialist in economic factors in the negotiation of conflicts within states, Achim Wennmann has suggested exploring the possibility that the government of Mexico enter into negotiations with the cartels using formal intermediaries and targeted clear: limit the areas of activity of the cartels, not to operate in schools, not to extend its activities to other classes such as kidnapping, trafficking, etc., and limit violence. What is needed is to give economic incentives for the cartels to limit their activities and spaces and enable a life of Mexican society closer to civility.

In principle, negotiate with organized crime is a morally repugnant idea. However, it has an ethical side defensible: a war without victory possible is an indefinite extension of the slaughter and brutality. Mexican society, in particular young people with no chance of social mobility just getting used to see violence as normal and extremely effective. The callus of the collective consciousness means a huge cultural cost, a mortgage the future. Mexico does not have to pay a bill that should be entirely in the hands of consumers, who ultimately is what makes possible the mountains of Sinaloa has become not only a producer of marijuana and poppy but totally dehumanized characters being imposed lifestyles, values \u200b\u200band extreme forms of relationships between organized crime and the rest of society. Italy is an example of how difficult it is to uproot the culture of the mafia. Barriers



Negotiate with criminal organizations is not an ideal solution but the alternative is worse. However, the obstacles to achieving a less bad among potential are many. On the one hand, the "war on drugs" has paid dividends to Calderon and he does not have many alternative sources of political capital. On the other hand, Washington would have no objection, and while this government has not been able to reduce the demand for his company has ample resources to pressure Mexico. There is ironic that Washington itself might consider negotiating with bad-for example, negotiating with one of its enemies to isolate Taliban to more intransigent.

However, as a society have the right and obligation to propose alternatives to a state of things simply deteriorate over time. Mexico is better and more urgent things to do with their economic resources, with the lives of young people, their soldiers and policemen, have to fight a war without hope and, finally, is only partly and in any case our product of our proximity to the United States.