[Power Grab] Real Freedom

For all their talk of the "freedoms" brought on by capitalist democracies, neocons sure don't have a lot to show for it! Thanks to the religious morality imposed by neocons on today's dominant societal structure, there is no freedom for homosexuals, no freedom for women who choose to get an abortion, no freedom for those who have decided their time is up and would prefer to end their lives. And there is certainly no freedom for prisoners who have not even been convicted or charged (what happened to presuming everyone's innocence until proven guilty?).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist [click on link below to expand to full post] (nor a feminist for that matter) to figure out that in a modern neoliberal capitalist "democracy" superimposed with neoconservative morality, freedom tends to belong to economically comfortable white heterosexual men. How fair does that sound!?

This is why (and I will show an example here) the resurgence of the left, the DEMOCRATIC left, the socialist-idealist-democracy-constrained-by-powerful-constitutional-laws -which-protect-the-minority left, is crucial. The left needs to assume power, in a fair way, in order to redistribute freedom more fairly. This should be easy to do once everyone has a clear and undistorted view of the wonderful fair and just world that could result. Only the left can distribute "freedom" more equitably, because right-wing economics and right-wing morality are just plain and simply unfair, unjust and elitist.

It takes time, will, and POWER to change the dominant structures of our society. For decades the right has been restructuring our domestic and global societies along neoliberal format of political economic organization complimented by the neoconservative morality I discussed above (what a toxic mix!). But it doesn't have to be so. If the dominant ideologies and structures are unjust, it is our responsibility to dismantle them.

And here is my example:
Two years ago, a leftist government led by Tabare Vasquez was voted into power in Uruguay. And today Uruguay made the world news: "Uruguay Approves Gay Civil Unions". It is the first country in Latin America (a region particularly hard hit by neoliberalism and catholicism) to give the right to its citizens to marry whomever they choose. If that's not freedom, I don't know what is. Way to go Vasquez! Way to go Uruguayans! Thank-you for providing the rest of us with an excellent example of how easy it can be to break free.

[Dialogue] Venezuela Discussion

This blog entry comes in four parts:

First, I was sent an email link to an article by The Economist regarding the referendum in Venezuela. It was forwarded to me by a friend, who received it from their coworker and thought I would be interested.

See it here: ECONOMIST ARTICLE.


Second, I replied to my friend with the following response:

Remember that article about Venezuela in the Economist that you forwarded to me, from your coworker? Thanks for sending that, by the way. It made my blood boil, and as usual, I renewed my hatred for the economist with the force of a thousand burning suns. But nevertheless, it's always good to read reactionary neoliberal CIA-fed propaganda in order to know what that perspective has to say.

Anyway, if your coworker is interested in Venezuela, I would recommend these two sites which provide more in-depth analysis:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/ (this one is absolutely excellent with new articles every day just about venezuelan politics)
http://radiovenezuelaenvivo.blogspot.com/ (this one is recommended by Masaya and there are some pearsonites involved with it - this is the site where I listened to Chavez explain the election results and humbly concede defeat and his intention to listen to the democratic will of the people - he really is an exemplary democrat - despite what the media have to say)

The BBC seems to be quite moderate in their reporting, though they still pay more attention to opposition arguments than government ones. The CBC is just about as bad as the economist - their current Latin America correspondent, Connie Watson, is from Peace River, Alberta (which is just a little interesting tid bit).

No matter what the media badgers on about regarding Chavez's so-called "dictatorial tendencies", the important facts are:[click on link below to expand to full post]
a) Venezuela has one of the highest required percentages of a vote for a constitutional change, which Chavez only lost by 0.7% (meaning of course that in most democratic countries these reforms would have been passed with the amount of votes Chavez won).
b) Studies have shown that the Western media has disproportionately reported on stories about Chavez and the question of power compared to the dozens and dozens of countries out there that are American allies that have outright dictatorial regimes. For some reason the media fails to talk about these countries at all when they engage in their "freedom-loving", "democratic" diatribes.
c) In the run up to the referendum the media went on and on and on about the proposed reform to withdraw limits on the amount of elected terms that the president can run for. For the record, the following countries ALREADY HAVE UNLIMITED TERMS clauses within their constitutions: Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, United Kingdom and CANADA.
d) They also claimed that the proposed emergency rule clause was a way for Chavez to seize power and override any legislation he wanted - but again, this is a clause that we have in Canada. If Canada used it during the FLQ crisis (when the threat to Canada's government was not really significant), can you imagine what the government would do if Harper was kidnapped for two days by his bitter enemies? OF COURSE they would enact emergency rule! And yet, even though Chavez HAS been kidnapped and assassination plots abound, he has pardoned the majority of his kidnappers: He's merely trying to include a constitutional clause to protect the government from the undemocratic coup plotters backed by millions of dollars in CIA funding.

All this to say, I'll be the first to admit Chavez isn't perfect and that he has to work harder to make the revolution less about him and more about the principles of equality, but it is unbelievably frustrating to read the heaps and heaps of feces that comes from the likes of the Economist.


Third, my friend replied with responses from her coworker.... which I have compacted here:

I really enjoyed your critical analysis of the election, and I support a number of your assertions. However the following points I have a hard time supporting.

1) The FLQ crisis should not be heralded as a proud moment in Canadian democratic history.

2) The FLQ crisis pre-dates the institution of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and the imminent constitutional challenge on another prospective institution of the POGG power would most defiantly defeat another use of this power.

3) If Harper was kidnapped chances are most of us wouldn't even notice (Just Jokes!)

1) A number of your examples are Parliamentary Electoral systems, making this a mute point. The prime minister in a Parliamentary system rules at the pleasure of the house, making the comparison between the two offices challenging at best. For the record most democratic and stable presidential systems have term limits, or punctuated 'breaks" in-between periods of re-election.

2) You have named some mixed presidential systems where a president exists, but there powers are limited. At most only having a veto or delay ability, but with limited legislative powers. Where the powers of the Venezuelan president are considered "strong", and in the case of Chavez bordering on omnipotence.

1) All MEDIA HAS A BIASED!!! NO MATTER THE SOURCE! It is up to the reader to distinguish the truth by visiting alternative sources, and thank-you for providing some alternative sources.

2) Although there is a number of actions that support democracy in Venezuela (Referendums, Elections, and Such), there is a number of occurrences that do not support democracy (An independent judicial system, free press, and civil liberties) in a number of cases.

I support the following:

1. Chavez has a strong support in Venezuela. (And is probably stronger than that of what many "democratic" nations have)

2. The margin of the lose was minimal.

3. The economist is a biased western source, but to identify them as a "CIA fed" organization is an exaggeration. However it is neither one that I can refute or support. My opinion is that ownership, intended audience, and background of writers effects the ideological tint on their articles. I do enjoy the gramscian conflict theorist perspective though.

Please respond, I am interested.

P.S. What do you think about increased Venezuelan military expenditures? (Well, according to the western bias)

Finally, this was my response to the above questions/comments:

Thanks for initiating a discussion. I love this stuff… reminds me of being a student.

Sorry for this rather long response. I have taken some previous writings regarding Venezuela and infused them within...

Also, you’ll have to excuse the excessive rhetoric in my last email (especially in my descriptions of The Economist), which was partially designed to humor [my friend]. I recognize that that magazine is well established, with a massive readership among the global elite class (including business leaders and political decision makers). The reason I hate it is that it brands itself as an impartial news source (they actually use the word “newspaper” instead of “magazine”) when they have a clear political and economic agenda to enforce neoliberalism upon domestic economies of the world (and the global economy too). Such neoliberal policies (such as free trade, privatization, and fiscal conservatism), in turn, have been exposed as being part of an elite project to maintain wealth and power in the hands of the few. Yes, every media network has its bias, but when that bias is one that increases inequality, it deserves strong criticism.

I don’t know enough about the Canadian restrictions on the use of the emergency rule to comment more on its use in this country. The point is that such a clause does not exist in Venezuela, which is why they were trying to include it within the proposed constitutional reforms. And while the US-funded opposition went to great lengths to suggest that this would be misused by Chavez, there is a recent historical precedent for requiring such a clause in that country (the 2002 failed coup against Chavez). There are examples aplenty of failed coups being manipulated to launch authoritarianism, but if anything, Chavez has demonstrated that that is not his goal – and again, he pardoned many of the coup plotters for their participation in the unsuccessful coup against him. Also, it should have been reported that one of the main purposes of that suggested clause was to use emergency rule in cases of humanitarian and natural disasters. In countries with such widespread poverty, earthquakes and floods tend to cause more deaths and devastation than in countries with expensive infrastructure. This is something Chavez has written a lot about when he was an army general – how to reconcile the national military with the needs of the people (in order to mobilize state-paid soldiers to help build infrastructure and come to the aid of communities facing floods and hurricanes, droughts and the likes, rather than fight foreign wars). In other words, this clause was taken totally out of context by the Western media, which was desperate to try to portray Chavez as a power hungry dictator. Chavez has never imposed emergency rule because that is not allowed in the constitution, but guess which Venezuelan head of state did impose a type of emergency rule in Venezuela? Pedro Carmona, the coup leader who took Chavez’s place for two days while Chavez was being kidnapped in April five years ago. With one decree, Carmona dissolved the Supreme Court and the democratically elected National Assembly and suspended the Constitution! AND there is plenty of footage of key White House spokesmen on CNN congratulating Carmona and “the people of Venezuela for bringing democracy back”! Unbelievable!

This brings me to the “CIA-fed” comment I made and the question of media bias. I doubt that The Economist calls up the CIA and asks them for facts and figures to include in their reports (although the Economist Intelligence Unit’s country-by-country analyses are strikingly similar to those within the CIA’s World Factbook… hmm). Anyway, I was referring to a recently leaked CIA document which outlined the agency’s recent plans to disseminate false information in the lead up to the referendum. In one month alone, the CIA spent $8 million dollars on anti-Chavez propaganda (http://www.counterpunch.org/petras11272007.html). Undoubtedly, this included feeding information not just to the Venezuelan opposition media, but also to the big Western media networks. And if you were trying to reach business leaders and international government advisors, and you had an $8 million/month budget, wouldn’t you try to get your information to The Economist? That said, Venezuela is very possibly the country with the most free press, because they have the most vehement anti-government media operating there. There are many TV stations that are openly anti-government and even admit their bias. Of these stations, only one was denied a broadcasting license by the government, because of the direct role it had played in inciting violence, riots and the relationship it had to the 2002 coup plotters. Again, people tried to make this sounds like Chavez was squashing dissent, but as media analyst David Edwards explains, “95% of the media in Venezuela is fiercely opposed to the government. This includes five privately owned TV channels controlling 90% of the market. All of the country’s 118 newspaper companies, both regional and national, are privately held, as are 706 out of 709 radio stations.” If that’s not free press, I don’t know what is! (http://mala.mayfirst.org/node/8) Edwards also explains how the government’s decision not to renew RCTV’s license was reported in 207 articles in the US press, and 23 articles in the BBC. By contrast, when the President of Honduras (Manuel Zelaya) declared that “all TV and radio stations [in Honduras] broadcast one-hour prime-time [government propaganda] programs every day for 10 days” in May of this year, it was only mentioned in the US press in 4 articles, and in the British press in 1 article. For the record, Bush is great friends with the autocratic Zelaya because the latter is a proponent of the US-Central America Free Trade Agreement. Here’s a photo of them shaking hands: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060605-1.html)

Regarding unlimited election terms, I have to admit that on a personal level, this is one element of the American presidential system that I truly admire (a maximum of 2 terms). Nothing makes me happier than knowing Bush can never run again (though there is nothing in the Constitution from preventing his brother to do so). I think it’s good to get new faces in there, and politics should be less about personalities and more about principles. Nevertheless, if the citizenry wants to ELECT someone as their leader for more than two terms, shouldn’t they at least have the option do decide that themselves? I fail to see the problem with (false) accusations (that Bush himself made) that Chavez “wants to be president for life”. Well, I’m sure lot’s of people want to be President for life, but thanks to the flourishing democracy in Venezuela, the electorate can decide if he gets to be so or not – it’s not up to megalomaniacs, it’s up to the people. And yet, if Chavez really wanted to be president for life, why did he announce yesterday that he plans to step down in 2013 when his current term ends? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7131993.stm). Finally, I also noted the difference between parliamentary and presidential systems, but it should be mentioned that the US only ratified presidential term limits in 1951, and that Italy and France (two of the countries I mentioned) both have presidential systems and no limits on the amount of terms a president can serve. (And don’t even get me started on parliamentary systems still have constitutional ties to monarchies! We still have the Queen of the British Empire’s head on all our coins – it’s as if we’re still living in Medieval times, when the idea of “limits” on leadership terms was a fantastical idea).

As for your point that that there are a “number of occurrences that do not support democracy (an independent judicial system, free press, and civil liberties)” in Venezuela, I’m not sure what these occurrences are. As I mentioned above, Venezuela’s media is arguably the most free in the world. In terms of the judicial system, the judicial reforms Chavez made in 1999 were praised by international human rights organization, because the previous “independent” courts were closed to the public, guilt was presumed before innocence, judges were highly corrupt, and police were able to detain people for up to eight days without any charges laid. Luckily the democratically elected national assembly reformed the backwards judicial system there. (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Venezuela-JUDICIAL-SYSTEM.html)

As for civil liberties, I offer this example of the thousands of anti-Chavez protesters who marched freely on November 29th (without the kind of riot police violence that we have here in Canada): http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2923

Finally, to answer your question, I am not fond of Chavez’s increased military spending, in the same way that I am not fond of Canada’s increased military spending or America’s increased military spending. As a Canadian and an American, it is my civic responsibility to criticize the horrendous and destructive wars taking part in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, I leave it up to Venezuelans to take Chavez to task on military spending, but in Venezuela’s defense, Chavez is not looking to start foreign wars like our Prime Minister is. Chavez claims that recent helicopter, patrol boat and ammunitions purchases are for national defense. While the US is unlikely to launch a direct war with Venezuela, they do provide over $600 Billion in MILITARY FUNDING to Colombia EVERY YEAR, and there seems to be quite a military presence amassing on the Colombian side of the Colombia-Venezuela border. Nevertheless, Chavez has tried to reach out to Colombian President Alvaro Uribe many times and has plans for the creation of an economic trading network in Latin America that includes Colombia. Chavez was also asked to help negotiate hostage releases between the Colombian military and the FARC. But that American pawn, Uribe, suddenly told Chavez off and now there is a serious diplomatic row between those two countries (again, probably a result of American influence). Finally, as I mentioned above, Chavez has different designs for the Venezuelan military: He wants soldiers to take part in community building projects.

Though I will give you this: In addition to military spending, Chavez has made a really dumb move in befriending Iran’s Ahmadinejad. The latter made such a fool of himself on his recent tour to the US – he really is an autocratic idiot that nobody likes (including most Iranians). I think Chavez’s relations with him are political and more based on lending support for Iran’s sovereignty.

[Accuracy] Mainstream Media

Finally, an accurate video about Venezuela!

[Fundraising] Government and Turkeys

The following is from an email I wrote to CBC Edmonton regarding their annual Turkey Drive to raise money and food for local food banks.

I have been inspired by Ron Wilson’s morning updates on the CBC’s Turkey Drive. Yet while these kinds of charitable fundraising projects clearly demonstrate the compassionate nature of many Albertans, they simultaneously highlight the provincial government’s utter failure in the realm of social spending. It’s almost as if the citizenry has stepped in to cover the government’s lost revenue from corporate tax cuts and years of low royalties – money that could have been used to fund important social endeavors such as our food banks and shelters.

Thus I was impressed when I clicked on the CBC’s Turkey Drive link, only to find a very detailed timeline of the Alberta Government’s cuts to social spending. Thanks for making the link!

So here’s my idea: I say we pressure the provincial government into matching the number of donated turkeys (maybe even doubling the number of turkeys collected by the CBC) and force our government, for once, to take part in the same types of social spending that it’s citizens do. While the CBC's collected turkeys would go to local families in need, the government turkeys could be allocated to any community in the province.

I promise here and now – if you can get the Alberta Government to take part in the turkey drive, I will go out and buy a turkey, hop on my bike and bring it to the studio myself.

PS- If possible, we should support Alberta’s suffering small-scale farmers by purchasing turkeys from them.

[Monopolyism] Grocery Stores

There are only two large grocery stores within a couple kilometers from my home: Safeway and Save on Foods (I try to stay away from both of them as much as possible, favouring the weekly farmer's market, the two small organic food providers and other small businesses which provide local goods). Nevertheless, when I do go to either of the aforementioned grocery stores, I can't help feeling annoyed at the implications of their respective "club cards", which allow you to both accumulate "points" (god knows for what), and more recently, get a discount on your bill total.

This is not a new phenomenon by any means, and to a certain extent... [click on link below to expand to full post] I can see the value in having a "rewards card" for someone who is going to spend lots of money at a certain store, perhaps they should get something out of it (even though we all know it's just a marketing ploy). But what I have noticed emerging more and more recently - and which I take issue with here - is the varying prices for goods depending on whether or not you are part of the club. At both of these chains every item is listed by it's "member" and "non-member" prices. I would bet that the majority of goods are offered cheaper to people who sign up for the club cards. Any person in their right mind can see that you simply pay more for the exact same goods if you don't flash their member card - and this is why most of us (myself included) are compelled to join the club. But from an ethical standpoint, does it not seem WRONG to charge different prices for the exact same goods - merely based on whether or not someone is willing to divulge their personal information? This is blatant favouritism for the status quo; and its part of large chains' attempts to acquire monopolies in the food industry.

I think the chains do this for three main reasons: a) to promote brand loyalty, and b) to get marketing information on people and their demographic, and c) to coax you into buying more than originally planned. And it is precisely for these reasons that legislation should force grocery stores to stop this nonsense. First of all, their first goal likely fails because when it comes to items with a low elasticity of demand (such as food), people tend to buy these goods wherever is most convenient. Second, we don't really know what these chains are doing with our personal information, which everyone seems to be offering without concern to these massive corporations. Are they selling our info to any marketer who can afford it? DEFINITELY. Are they using the info from our scanned club cards to track our purchases in order to inform their demographic-based marketing and distribution strategies? YES! Are they sending us useless materials and emails and advertisements? OF COURSE. But do any of these things offer anything positive to the building of a better society. NO. Finally, in some cases, the rewards or points offered DO coax people into buying more from that store, and this is blatant manipulation that should not be allowed. Let's face it, we're talking about food here - we all need it. It should be offered to any citizen at a reasonable price, and if anyone should be paying higher prices it should be those who can afford to pay higher prices, not those who have chosen not to become members (or are unable to). What about transient and homeless people? They are likely not going to sign up for a member card if they don't have a fixed address and shop at the same location on a weekly basis. And yet these people - some of the most vulnerable in our society - are forced to pay more for a friggin' apple?! IT'S NOT RIGHT!

[Proof] See for yourself

Just to add credence to my accusations about the CBC's biased reporting (which I wrote about in my last posting), check out the image of the pro-reform rally on November 30th (the image of the Opposition Rally was included in my last blog post). The reporting about the previous day's opposition rally was was all over the Western media. Yet what did the CBC have to report about this demonstration (to which more than half a million people turned out)? NOTHING. zilch. nada. That's the "free press" for you - so free that they can easily get bought out by dirty CIA propaganda money, I guess.

[Feedback] The Referendum

The following is from a feedback card I submitted to CBC News on-line detailing my disappointment with their latest coverage on Venezuela. Included here is a picture of the opposition rally, which, to be fair, was quite large.

As the referendum on proposed democratic reforms approaches, it is more important than ever to get accurate information on the situation in Venezuela. Yet recently the CBC’s portrayals of the "yes" and "no" campaigns seem to be slightly biased in favor of the latter.

I am surprised that Connie Watson's correspondence in the last few days...[click link below to expand to full post] has not mentioned the recently leaked CIA memo detailing plans to destabilize Venezuela and to propagate an image of an overwhelming majority for the "NO" campaign. Instead, the CBC’s information seems to be in line with the large corporate media networks there - which are being funded by the United States.

As established Latin American analyst James Petras has explained, the CIA has spent millions of dollars in the last month trying to coerce Venezuelans into voting against the Chavez government, and on projecting an image of a massive, unstoppable, freedom-loving "NO" campaign. On the CBC news this morning, yesterday’s "No" demonstration was portrayed as a heroic nascent student movement that is going to save Venezuela's last vestiges of democracy.

But why did we hear relatively little from the other side of the coin which argues that the proposed reforms are a means to further democratize the country by redistributing wealth? There is so much emphasis on Chavez’s so-called “power grab”, and yet he is merely trying to legislate the exact same type of powers that our Canadian government enacted here decades ago(unlimited election terms based on the popular vote and extended executive powers in the case of a national emergency)! We’re not being told the whole story.

Ms Watson's report on Venezuela today, for example, implies that current food shortages in Venezuela are indicative of the government’s unsound economic planning, but there are other reporters who have shown that FEDECAMARAS, the elite big business food and wholesale producers consortium, is trying to intimate the public into voting “no” by “creating artificial shortages of basic food items” (see http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2911)

All this to say I can appreciate the difficulty faced by the CBC in portraying both sides of an extremely divisive issue, but that is all the more reason to try harder to tell it as fairly as possible – which means not forgetting to mention the masses upon masses of Venezuelans who support Chavez and see his vision as offering real hope for positive change in their country.

[Note of Solidarity] Venezuela!

This is a quick one:

In Europe, over 150 politicians recently declared their support for the Venezuelan government's efforts to build an entrenched socioeconomic style of democracy - one that sees the democratization and fair redistribution of wealth. They also called for everyone to respect the outcome of this weekend's referendum. The statement was initiated at a Europe-wide conference in support of the Venezuelan people's right to self-determination.

Read the story here: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2930

But here's my beef: A EUROPE-WIDE CONFERENCE IN SUPPORT OF VENEZUELA! If the Europeans can do it, I say so can the North Americans! The AFL-CIO and the CLC and the NDP and American Green Party and interest groups such as NACLA need to get one of these solidarity conferences going before it's too late! It has surfaced that the CIA has spent $8 million in the last month deliberately trying to sabotage the Venezuelan governments planned constitutional reforms. We need to offer our support to such noble efforts before the American spy agency manages to destroy yet another Latin American progressive regime.

[Prototype] The Nature Fridge

When I was a child growing up within the tropic of cancer, it was hard to comprehend how the common fridge kept food cool when it was so hot outside. Now that I'm older and living north of the 50th parallel, what really boggles my mind is how every single household uses energy to cool their food - in the winter - when the temperatures plummet to far below zero degrees Celsius! Is there any logic in this? In other words, we are using fossil fuels to heat up our houses, only to use more energy to keep our perishable food cold, thereby forcing us to store food in a tightly contained insulated cabinet which we run through electric current.

It doesn't take a cave man to realize that this... [click on link below to expand to full post] is insane.

So here's my prototype for a solution. And while I admit that I don't have the technical knowhow to physically build or power one of these things, I'm sure with our 21st century technology, it would be a cinch to create - provided there was a will amongst the people to harness natural power...

It's called "The Nature Fridge": New houses should be built with a special window-like section in the kitchen - behind where the fridge would be placed. But instead of window, this part of the wall would have a series of retractable vents/screens connecting the inside of the fridge and the great outdoors. There would be a thermometer on both sides - one in the fridge, and one outside. The real energy savings would come during the winter: A simple machine would retract some of the screens to use the cold winter air to cool the fridge naturally. Just think, on days when it dips to below zero (Celsius), you would not need to use any additional energy to cool your food, only the slight energy required to slide a few retractable screens up and down to maintain the right level of insulation.

Already, many houses have "cold rooms" which they use to store food in during the summer. These are basically dark rooms in a basement which harness the insulation of the Earth's surface to shield food from the summer heat.

Along with this, imagine the impact if every household also came with a small solar panel and a small wind generator on the roof - both hooked-up to the grid and - on the other end - energy storying batteries. Sure they would only generate a portion of each household's energy uses, especially at our current rates of consumption (which is something we desperately need to work on) - but imagine how much energy usage from the grid would diminish if every single household had some reserve energy produced from the natural furnaces that are the sun and the wind.

It just seems so easy, and yet, as a society we seem so stupid in our failure to adopt these kinds of simple steps in our homes. Meanwhile our CO2 emissions continue to destroy our planet while we idle (pun intended).

[Denunciation] Neoliberalism & Infrastructure

The following is from a letter I wrote to CBC's The Current, after a show about failing water infrastructure throughout Canada and the rising cost of utilities as a result. I've also added a photo of the Montreal overpass collapse of last year.

This morning as I listened to tales of severely underfunded and malfunctioning infrastructure in this country, I began to wonder .... does anyone not see the correlation between decreased government spending and the demise of public necessities such as functional roads and clean drinking water? The Canadian people need to WAKE UP!

The Harper government recently announced a GST and corporate tax cut that will reduce the government's income by $60 Billion over the next 5 years! Meanwhile, the health care system now requires service fees for nearly every procedure; the cost of education has sky-rocketed; sewage systems are contaminating our drinking water depots; highway bypasses are collapsing; public transportation plans in large cities are constrained by lack of funds; and non-profit organizations that help the social and environmental spheres are pleading for their funding not to be withdrawn! Where is the logic here?

While federal and provincial governments go to great lengths to "attract investment" by keeping corporate taxes, resource royalty rates, and interest rates unbelievably low, municipalities get stuck with giant bills for public projects that they can not afford to pay and everyday Canadians find themselves subsidizing the government's withdrawn funding by having to spend more for individual services that are increasingly becoming privatized.

Are we so blind that we can't see what's happening here? This is neoliberalism: it is in full force right now and we're allowing it to happen. While the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, our sense of community welfare dwindles, our environment continues to face degradation, and our public infrastructure suffers.

It's time to get rid of the string of irresponsible cronyist governments we've had and force our representatives to enact some politico-economic legislation that is in the interest of our community, for once!

[Rhyme] I hate Coca-Cola

The following is a cheesy rhyming song I wrote about multinationals:

If you hear a shot ring out in the night,
may it remind you of a different type of villain hard to sight:
Based in America – but now all over the world -
they’ve caused a shitload of trouble now that they’ve got unfurled.
These fucking multinationals are completely irrational,
spreading like a virus to every fucking capital,
and other cities and towns, villages too -
money’s what they want (what they will pillage from you)!

A different kind of ebola- corporate like cocacola -
is pinpointing consumers from hong kong to north dakota.
Is this really what we want Gaia reduced to?
What’s it going to look like when nike and coke both own you?
You see the corporate world won’t let humanity grow,
so this rhyme is saying "let’s go"- let’s reclaim like in seattle.
Neoliberal capitalism provides a sorry picture.
Peoples health and culture and rights are no longer on the scripture!

Sometimes what’s right doesn’t always seem to be in sight,
but if we all put up a fight, maybe things will be alright.

Since when is it your right to post your logo in my face?
A child who loves golden arches – isn’t that a Disgrace?
Spending millions on ads while the world faces hunger -
it should be a crime- let’s not allow it any longer.

How can it be legal to profit through the roof
while inequality continues to grow – ain’t that the truth!?
It doesn’t take much to see how bad things have gotten...
take a stroll down the streets, and see the homeless people we’ve forgotten.

Downsizing!? Just so the stockbrokers stop criticizing!?
Can’t you see the anger of your former workers rising!

We need popular education, in communities and grade schools.
We need to bring back Gramsci’s notion of the organic intellectuals!

So what now? Let’s take a look at the corporate record:
Treating people like they’re pawns in a game of checkers;
Environmental degradation; community annihilations;
and just-in time labour made easy by globalization!

Let's say "stay away -
we don’t support your corporation" all it wants is our money doesn’t care about us.
Yet it will try to stay,
and withdraw all our resources, and then one day we’ll find our water’s all grey.
So let’s say stop… who’s calling the shots?
Is it the people and the workers or the riot cops?
It’s time to rise up, reclaim our streets -
to protect our environment... we can't be beat.

[Notes from a Pedaler] Bicycle Revolution

In the spirit of RTS (Reclaim The Streets) parades, most cities host weekly or monthly critical mass bike rallies. These rallies are a conglomeration of environmentalists, health conscious folk and community-oriented activists who see the great potential that bicycles have in confronting some of our biggest societal problems: Global warming, obesity, pandemic cardiovascular disease, smog and pollution-related respiratory diseases, daily urban traffic, oil-related resource wars, and even the growing close-minded coldness of car-reliant suburban neighbourhoods. Indeed, it is time for a bicycle revolution. Let us take a loose handle bar to our cars and... [click on link below to expand to full post] convert them into stationary flower pots, and ride our bikes a little more often.

Bicycles have so much to offer: They are easy to build (and rebuild) and relatively cheap compared to other forms of transportation; They don’t contribute to global warming in any significant way and don’t add to city smog; They’re quick and easy to commandeer; They make you feel good about yourself and contribute to your cardio health. Really, the bicycle is an incredible invention: Two wheels, a seat, a few gears, and voilà, you can get from point “a” to point “b” quickly and easily. As an added plus, there is the sense of accomplishment of having used your own humanpower to hurdle your body through time and space. No emissions, no smelly car odors, no nagging children in the back seat. Bikes are more compact and can get you through tight spaces and around tight corners, across grass and other places that cars and public transport are confined too – and you can get away with cruising through stop signs without having to come to a complete stop . Bicycles lead to healthier lifestyles as they promote physical activity and get people outside breathing fresh flowing air. With so much to offer, why wouldn’t you want to ride your bike?

Ever since I decided that I would try use my bike as much as possible I’ve felt better and better about my life in so many ways. I encourage you to challenge yourself to ride your bike all year long, even through the winter, and see if you feel the benefits of quick and easy, low cost, healthy and environmentally-friendly transportation.

Also, join in on a bike rally, or start a bike gang (with real bikes). Here are critical mass websites from Toronto and Vancouver:

(Toronto) http://www.cmtoronto.ca/
(vancouver) http://www.bikesexual.org/cm/home.htm

[Poem] The Black Plague

The following is a poem I wrote about oil... (with a picture of Canada's disgusting Tar Sands gigaproject beside it).

The Black Plague

It’s really a marvel! A marvel!
Starts off as black sliminess extracted from the Earth –
But then you refine it, barrel it, sell it,
ship it, sell it, pump it, sell it,
Let it course through the veins of the malleable alloy beast –
like blood courses through us – and
vroom vroom, you’re on your way!
Black gold is really a marvel!

Kerosene, plastics, asphalt,
Fertilizers, propane, cosmetics,
GAS-O-LINE!
It’s really a marvel what you can do with this stuff!
A marvel!

The kerosene lamp, the combustion engine,
Cars, trucks, trains,
Airplanes, airplanes aero planes!
Home heating – it’s energy man –
it keeps our civilization growing.
It keeps us warm.
It’s our blood, our blood I say.

In the Middle East, in Angola, in Yucatan,
In Siberia, in Venezuela, Alaska,
and now in Alberta.
Drive west from the east –
cross through Lloydminster –
a town cut in half by the border.
Keep driving, and on the outskirts of town
the liquefied petroleum wells become
visible from the highway;
dotting the farmers’ fields,
on small circular plots,
a conglomerate of pipes
tangled around a large tank or two.
I spy with my little eye
something that is…
black and gooey!

The Cold War, The OPEC crisis,
The Gulf War, the Iraq War,
THE WAR ON TERROR.
First came the automobile, then came the wars.
After all, we’ve got to keep the price low.
Ten cents a gallon. Ten cents a litre.
Twenty cents, Fifty cents, SEVENTY FIVE CENTS!
A dollar a litre, more!
Fuck public transportation! I want to drive my car to work!
How many Iraqi lives does it take to drive my car to work?

Carbon Dioxide, emissions,
The International Panel on Climate Change.
First came the wars, then came global warming.
But you’ve got to keep the wells open, the pipelines flowing –
or we’ll collapse.
We need it!

Standard Oil, crude oil, motor oil, peak oil!
It’s a drug, a drug I tell ya!
It made us, and now it will destroy us.
Some call it black gold.
But it’s the black plague.

[Part One] Political Economy of Global Warming

Towards the end of 2006, the frenzy of global warming seemed to be at an all time high. This was when Al Gore's movie was becoming ever popular, and campaigns to save the polar bears were growing on campuses across North America, and when the scientific community finally agreed unanimously that climate change was not just a figment of our imaginations. This media proliferation of doomsday scenarios was all fine and dandy in my opinion, because, one would hope, it might provoke action and change. But as the "solutions" to global warming were contemplated in parliament, it struck me that we were continually failing to see the link between our POLITICAL ECONOMIC STRUCTURE and our society's overconsumption of fossil fuels. So I wrote this two part diatribe on the Political Economy of Global Warming. (I also attached a photo of the latest craze: Hummer Limos, which in my opinion are a physical embodiment of our society's consumption disease)

A Political Economy of Global Warming

Part One: The Banality of Individualist Solutions

It’s Christmas Eve, 2006, and there is no snow to speak of. Pretty soon we will all be dreaming of the white Christmases we used to have – forever gone. The experts have commented in droves, and the facts are indisputable – the world is experiencing global warming. As former American Vice-President, Al Gore, makes painfully clear in his popular climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the average global temperature is increasing year by year. Hurricanes and typhoons are more plentiful and more deadly. Rains, hail, tornadoes, floods and heat waves are more erratic and more dangerous. The destruction of the Earth’s environment, it turns out, is the closest thing we’ve ever had to genuine threat of apocalypse (far more realistic a threat than the “Millennium glitch” of New Years 2000). Unfortunately, try as they might, the majority of Canadians will not be able to significantly contribute to climate change solutions - until it is far too late. There are a number of reasons why this is so, all of which demonstrate a severe problem with the way our neoliberal society overemphasizes individualism.

The sad truth is that most people in Canada stand to benefit – in the short run – from warmer temperatures. Let’s face it – unless you are an outdoor winter sports enthusiast (hockey doesn't count here - it's an indoor sport for the most part these days), warmer winters are not as loathsome as people lead on. Sure, the fact that this is going to be the warmest winter in recorded history is a scary thought, but only when we internalize the higher temperatures within the context of apocalyptic climate change. On a day-to-day basis though, warmer temperatures will have relatively little impact on the individual Canadian. Warmer winters will mean that more “snowbirds” will spend their winters here, that more time can be spent outside, that less driveways will have to be shoveled, that cars will actually start in the morning, and that hairdos won’t get mucked-up by wearing toques! No more senseless shivering, no more replacing your supply of mitts and scarves every fall. In other words, from an individual standpoint, the short-term benefits of climate change in Canada will translate into day-to-day apathy about this issue.

But that's just the surface of our problem. The irony is that as neoliberal policies promote the mantra of hyper-individualism in our society, the more everyday Canadians will contribute to carbon emissions, which will only exacerbate the problem of global warming in the long run. This has to do with the relative wealth of Canada within the world system. Canadians have gotten so used to buying their way out of discomfort. As climate change brings extreme weather patterns and disasters such as floods and heat-waves, most individuals will respond with their wallets. This, in turn, will likely contribute to further carbon emissions, because the production of goods is inextricably linked to energy use. A classic example is the typical Canadian summer heat wave: Canadians are so accustomed to turning on their personal air conditioners (which most people in the world can’t afford), that in the summer of 2003 electricity usage surged so high in Southeastern Ontario that a massive power outage swept across the entire region. The unfortunate event was highly indicative of the paradox of individualism: On a personal level, each individual felt the need to create their own bubble of cool weather, while the cumulative effect of these millions of personalized climates ultimately yielded the dysfunction of all air-conditioners. This is the individualist response to climate change in a nutshell.

It goes to show that the global warming problem is a one of overconsumption – relating in particular to an industrial sector completely reliant on fossil fuels. Thus we can not even begin to confront the global warming issue unless we curb our consumption in general. Here's another example of the "buying our way out of global warming paradox": A typical environmentally conscious "green" individual may very likely go out and buy a new hybrid vehicle, replacing an older gas guzzler, in order to "do their part" for climate change. But this individual usually fails to calculate the enormous amount of energy required to produce that new car (and consequently the amount of emissions, pollution and toxins that are being added to our planet for each new purchase). Unless that person plans to use the new hybrid vehicle A LOT (which will expend yet more energy), the net emissions will likely NOT be a reduction, but an increase in total emissions in comparison to just keeping the gas guzzler. Instead of buying new cars, we should be trying to consume less by using larger, public forms of transit (triple-checked for efficiency) that significantly reduce the net emissions per person. This is why we need a communitarian approach to climate change, not an individual consumerist one, since the problem affects all of humanity.

Unfortunately, even a nationally oriented response to climate change here in Canada is unlikely to yield successful results. This is because the same conundrum of individual self-interest that exists in the domestic setting is also prevalent in the world system of nation states. Again, while climate change will effect the entire world, it has been shown that global warming will be much more devastating in the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer. This is why stories of floods and hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis are growing and becoming increasingly deadly in the "Global South". Yet here in Canada (and the rest of the "Global North" for that matter), the number of warm months will only serve to extend our agricultural seasons and even allow new species of flora to thrive in our continent. Olive trees in Ontario are no longer a pipe dream. The impending desertification of the Earth will have horrific consequences for the tropical regions of the Earth, but not for Canada (at least not for another few decades). It's true that the summers here will also be warmer, and heat waves may yield potentially deathly hot temperatures, but these heat waves will likely only last a few days, and furthermore, Canadians historically don’t tend to care too much about heat waves because they have their personalized air conditioners to cool off (which as explained above, only adds to the problem).***

This brings us to the main reason why most Canadians won’t do anything about global warming: They are rich. They can buy their way out of nature’s wrath: for now. North Americans are relatively some of the richest people on the planet. They have cars and they have travel agents. They have air conditioners and they have furnaces. They have steady access to food and they have health care, and they have insurance. And if all else fails, they have powerful militaries to coerce other countries into giving them valuable resources. Let us put it this way: If they are too cold, they can use their money to make their private climate-spaces. If they are too warm, they can equally create or travel to colder spaces. If there are hurricanes, they can afford to get out of harms way days in advance. If there are tornadoes, they can hide in the bunkers that they can afford to build, and they can rebuild their houses if they get destroyed. If there are floods, they can escape, or move elsewhere. And they can always fall back on insurance claims. In other words, while rising sea levels will sink both the the Maldives and Manhattan, most Maldivians will end up living in refugee camps in India, while most Manhattanites can easily avoid the impending floods by moving to their cottages in New York state's interior.

If most Canadians can't do anything significant about global warming, then we are faced with two options. Either a) we accept our doomed fate and seize the day while we still can, or b) we force Canadians to stop contributing to global warming, NOW. Some readers may be of the inclination that we just seize the day and prepare for the impending weather chaos. Others, like myself, feel the only responsible option is to act now, and to stop this cycle before it reaches the threshold of no return. But it won’t be easy. We can all watch Al Gore’s film and sit around depressed for a few days, we can forward the dismal facts to others and remind people to stop idling their cars, we can start riding our bikes or taking the bus and leaving the car at home a little more; We can even take Al Gore’s advice and use new energy-efficient lightbulbs; we can re-use and recycle, and try to take the train instead of short haul flights. Yet while we should do all these things, the fact is that they really won’t make enough of a difference.

The REAL inconvenient truth about climate change is that our well-meaning individuals are failing to see the heart of the problem: Our political economic structure. Again, the real nemesis is basic way we have organized our economy to completely rely on using our own personal wealth to satiate our every personal desire. What we really need is a new social understanding, new laws, new property relations and modes of production that are less focussed on individual consumption and economic growth. This kind of talk makes stock brokers and their political cronies very nervous. It makes them feel threatened and they start to lash back at the public with corporate tax cuts and investment incentives and the securitization of our state to protect the interests and property of the economic elite. But we as a public have no choice but to call for change, massive revolutionary changes to the political and economic structure of our society. We are already one step closer to this, given our societal understanding of the threat of climate change.

Finally, if I may end with a quick caveat, I use the term "rich Canadians" in an accusatory tone, because, as a white middle-class male with Canadian and American citizenship, I am one of them. As a member of this community I feel it is my responsibility to put forth an argument for change, as WE are the ones who are wreaking havoc on this planet. Let us unite together to stop this nonsense now.


*** I realize that many Canadians from the middle and lower classes don't have air conditioners and can't afford them. So my comment about Canadians "not caring about heat waves because they all have air conditioners" should be read as a sarcastic remark about individualist attitudes of those who only look out for themselves. Ironically, it is the poor in Canada who will be less able to cope with severe weather caused by climate change, rather than the rich folk who contribute the vast majority of emissions.

[Rant] Costa Rica contemplates CAFTA

The following is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to friends and family while traveling in Costa Rica in July 2007

... Those good old avaricious American neoliberals are at it again, this time targeting all of Central America with propositions of “free trade” through the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

What makes CAFTA an obvious “win” for America, in my opinion, is the fact that the US already has pretty minimal tariffs for incoming Central American imports as a result of the Caribbean Basin Initiative (an old policy initiated during the Cold War with the specific aim of confronting Marxist governments by providing favorable trade conditions with non-socialist governments). Thus CAFTA is clearly a lopsided deal calling only for the reduction of existing Central American tariffs on incoming US imports, which everyone knows will have an advantage because they are often subsidized by the US government.

The US has already [... click on link below to expand to full post] ratified CAFTA in 2005, anxious to get trading as fast as possible - after all, we’re talking about more than $30 Billion a year in commerce. All of the other countries have signed with the US, but Costa Rica has stalled the negotiations because the issue has been incredibly divisive here. Just last week the government announced that the country is going to hold its first ever referendum on the matter: To join or not to join, that is the question! Both the ‘Si’ and the ‘No’ campaigns appear to be very active, although in different capacities. For example, it is quite common to see graffiti or posters on the streets throughout the country, saying stuff like “No hay ambiente para el TLC!” whereas the ‘Si’ campaign – backed by big business – puts out “neutral editorials” in the national papers claiming that it would be economic suicide not to sign the deal.

Aside from acquiring access to yet more “markets” and forcing monetarist and neoliberal policies upon Costa Rica and the other nations incorporated in the deal, the US is particularly interested in some of the nationalized industries here. Obviously the privatization of public enterprises and services is one of the key components of the trade deal. For example, Costa Rica’s state-run electricity company, I.C.E, is a large unionized firm which handles all of the electrical infrastructure (including hydro-electric dams) in the country. ICE is just one of the firms that the US is after. The free trade deal would likely see the deregulation and privatization of the entire utilities industry (and thus the folding of ICE), the firing of thousands of organized employees, and eventually the transfer of capital to the shareholders of the new private enterprises, who will almost certainly be American or, if not, then part of the Central American elite upper class. Yet supposedly this result would be good for the general populace, proponents claim, because it will drive down prices, create competition and innovation in the utilities realm (and thus efficiency), and allow public “choice” and market freedom (in only it were that easy!).

Most locals I’ve talked to think they’re going to get their slice of the pie. I think they’re dreaming, and I try to express my opinion through my semi-functional Spanish. I’ve spoken to a number of ticos (Costa Ricans), for instance, who are in favour of the deal because they think the American tourists will stop coming here if the country doesn't sign the agreement (this despite the fact that there are more and more tourists coming every year without any existing free trade deal). One man told me that he felt that Costa Rica had to sign the deal because otherwise they would be left in the Chavez camp, and that was a dangerous place to be. This kind of fear – fear of offending the Empire, or arousing the giant – is easy to understand considering the history of American intervention in Latin America during the Cold War. It is a lesson that Guatemala learned in 1954, that Chile learned in 1973, and that Nicaragua learned in 1979 (to name just a few of a plethora of examples): That lesson being that to jeopardize large-scale American capitalist interests is interpreted by the US ruling class as a an act of war - and they will come back with all of the resources that their lobbyists and think-tanks and media conglomerates can muster up: from vicious publicity to covert CIA-sponsored coups to the full-fledged launching of wars (it has happened more than once!).

The referendum is an interesting way of handling the issue. On one hand it is an ideal form of democratic governance: This is a divisive and important issue, so let the populace decide. On the other hand, it is a way for the government to absolve itself of any responsibility for anything that goes wrong in the future. If access to information and a “neutral analysis” (if such a thing exists) were more readily available, the referendum may not be a bad way of handling it. Unfortunately at this point there seems to be solely confusion about the issue, and people feel pressure to vote one way or the other because of manipulative information rather than voting for the good of the community at large....

[Theory II] Gramscian Internationalism

The following is taken from a paper I wrote on International Relations Theory. While Gramsci was particularly concerned with the class struggle on a domestic level, his theory could very well be applicable in the international setting.

The revolution is coming. It may not happen tomorrow, but it will happen nonetheless. It may start in a local context, but its repercussions will be global. What this revolution will look like, and [...click on link below to expand to full post] whether or not it will be marked by a hegemonic order, is not yet certain. As such, it is the task of the intellectual – the organic, critically thinking intellectual – to help conceive of what a new world order might look like, and how we might go about achieving it.

Such has been the focus of intellectuals Antonio Gramsci and Robert W. Cox. Gramsci focused on domestic revolution, while Cox expanded upon the core of Gramsci’s ideas and applied them to the international arena. The resurrection of Gramscianism within the field of international relations has provided an authentic and respectable theoretical model for neo-Marxists in the academy to follow. Indeed, Gramsci’s work contributed to ‘historical materialism’ what Kenneth N. Waltz contributed to realism. That is, they both made their respective theories ‘prettier’. Yet in contrast to the parsimonious nature of neorealism, what makes Gramsci’s work beautiful is the way he highlighted simple relationships –between civil society and the state, between coercive governments and consenting masses – and demonstrated how the nature of these relationships hold the key to major social transformations and even genuine emancipation. In this review, I build upon Cox’s writings on Gramsci, and – in good neo-Gramscian form – I go further to suggest the contemporary possibilities of a new world order and posit where this might take place.

First it is important to locate our current geopolitical arena and identify the existing world order. Cox starts this process by dividing the last century and a half into distinct periods. Cox saw the first period (1845-1975) as the classic era of pax britanica. The rise of “free trade, the gold standard and free movement of capital and persons” across the globe were maintained both by informal conventions and the coercive power of the British navy (Cox, 60, 223). The second period (1975-1945) witnessed the demise of the previous order, as well as chaos and war between great powers and the elimination of international ‘consent’ for the old order of imperialism. The third period (1945-1965) witnessed a return to a hegemonic order, with the United States using the Bretton Woods trio and Keynesian economics as the formal institutions which helped maintain international consent for the new pax americana. The final period (1965 to the time of Cox’s writing) sees the demise of Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism in its stead. Cox does not explicitly state whether the current neoliberal order is hegemonic or whether it is witnessing the emergence of a new counter-hegemonic bloc. He does imply that it is a period of potential transformation and suggests three possibilities for the future: Either a new hegemonic order “based upon the global structure of social power generated by the internationalizing of production”; or a non-hegemonic order marked by the emergence of multiple and conflicting “power centers”; or a counter-hegemonic order based on a “coalition” of developing countries that confront the dominance of the core countries and attempt to bring an end to traditional core-periphery inequalities (Cox, 237-238). This latter possibility is currently showing promise. Below, I will further explain how the world is indeed witnessing the emergence of a counter-hegemonic bloc as Cox anticipated more than two decades ago.

It is important, however, not to confuse the Gramscian notion of ‘hegemony’ (and thus ‘counter-hegemony’) with the neorealist terminology. In the realm of international relations, the Gramscian interpretation of ‘hegemony’ helps us to understand why the United States may be incapable of achieving a level of global stability despite its preponderance of power. In contrast, the neorealist can only account for a state’s capabilities, and as such fails to see the contingent power of institutions and conventions that are required to help maintain an order (Cox, 223). The political ramifications are severe. In essence, the neorealist advisor calls for increased military budgets and suspicion towards the intentions of other states (including suspicion towards multilateralism). The critical theorist advisor (if such a thing were to exist) would not only demonstrate how institutions and conventions help maintain hegemony, but would further seek to push for a world that is more fair and egalitarian. Put succinctly by Cox, neorealists fail to recognize that “dominance by a powerful state may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition of hegemony” (Cox, 223. Emphasis added). With this reinforced notion of ‘hegemony’ we are better able to appreciate the reasons for the decline of the American empire, which has taken place since the years of the OPEC crisis and the original conception of a New International Economic Order.

Most interesting, however, is that the latter part of this non-hegemonic period has witnessed the emergence of a counter-hegemonic bloc, one that is growing every day, and one that has the potential to capture the hearts and minds of global civil society. Where is this taking place? This reviewer has witnessed a counter-hegemonic bloc, Gramscian style, emerging in Latin America. Latin Americanists have begun to express how the so-called ‘Washington consensus’ (neoliberalism) is being vehemently rejected in parts of Latin America and continues to be questioned in the realms of state and civil society. Polities with functional civil societies have grown wary of what American neoliberalism has thus far offered to them. In recent years, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Mexico (and of course Cuba) have either elected leaders or spawned massive social movements that fall into this counter-hegemonic bloc. Even traditional intellectuals are taking note, as noticeable in the title of next year’s conference for the Latin American Studies Association (made up of 5000 academics throughout the hemisphere): After the Washington Consensus: Collaborative Scholarship for a New América.

The IR version of Gramscianism helps a great deal in explaining this rise of dissent in Latin America. In contrast, neoliberals will have you believe that America needs to turn its attention to evil-minded despots in the Middle East or Asia and that the end of history can be achieved through enforcing free markets and democracy upon the world. Neorealists are warning of the impending emergence of India and China as new superpowers. Yet this oversight on behalf of the Bush administration’s "neorealiberalist" advisors has allowed the counter-hegemonic bloc to grow and flourish without the same kind of successful trasformismo that has been characterized throughout Latin American history, which has taken place in the name of the 1823 Monroe doctrine. It has been American policy to either passively co-opt or outright intervene coercively to ensure the continuance of ‘consent’ amongst Latin American peoples; Hence the countless examples of American overt and covert interventions throughout the region both during the Cold War (in the name of anticommunism) and during the previous imperial era (in the name of liberalism). Thus, while the United States is mired in conflicts in other parts of the globe, a Gramscian type of passive revolution is made possible in Latin America. Cox describes passive revolution as “the introduction of changes which did not involve any arousal of popular forces” (Cox, 54). It would be a fallacy to suggest that the so-called “shift to the left” in Latin America has gone without the arousal of American or opposition forces. However, the traditional response, the response that America has touted in previous world orders, is now different, and it has been deemphasized while the U.S. is mired in other regional conflicts.

Passive revolution does present some potential dangers. Gramsci and Cox warn of the possibility of ceaserism. This may be what the world is witnessing in the public bravado of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Nevertheless, as Cox points-out, caeserism does not always have to be reactionary; it can also be progressive. As noted above, another danger is presented by trasformismo, which Gramsci identified as a process of co-opting potential revolutionary leaders, specifically the “assimilating and domesticating [of] potentially dangerous ideas by adjusting them to the policies of the dominant coalition.” (Cox, 55) In the Latin American context, this is most prominently witnessed in America’s ability force nations that are antithetical to the Washington consensus into unilateral trade deals with the United States. A statement symptomatic of trasformismo was made by recently-elected Nicaraguan leftist Daniel Ortega, who went to great lengths to indicate that his regime would not work against the interests of foreign big business. The history of American-led wars in Latin America has certainly left a legacy of fear in the hearts of all Latin Americans, and this fear has worked in favor of the anti-revolutionary force of trasformismo. Put simply, previous examples of coercion have now led to a certain measure of consent.

However, we know that Gramsci saw state and society forming a solid structure, and that revolution required a new structure emerge within this relationship, overturning the old order. According to him, a blocco storico emerges “when a subordinate class (e.g., the workers) establishes its hegemony over other subordinate groups (e.g., small farmers, marginals)” (Cox, 56). This blocco storico is necessary for the achievement of a war of position, a revolutionary transformation which can take place as a result of changing social conventions more so than resulting from coercion. I argue that this is what is being witnessed in Latin America. The ability of Chavez, Morales and Lula (all of whom were previously members of the working class), to establish their hegemony over other subordinate groups is indicative of the localized change which will soon lead to global revolution.

[Theory I] Neorealiberalism

The following is taken from a paper I wrote on International Relations Theory. Those who have learned the basics of IR theory know that "realism" and "liberalism" are the two mainstream IR schools of thought. However, while these two theories have continued to gain credence in the academy and particularly within the US State Department, some theorists have observed that neo-realism and neo-liberalism are becoming more and more intertwined. It is important for me to expose these theories as being two sides of the same coin, because countries that push for neoliberal economic policies within the international arena (particularly G8 countries) seem to be doing it for reasons of political self-interest. The outcome is what I am calling a "neorealiberalist" state - one which calls for international economic integration as a political tool for securing national interests. This may seem banal, but in reality neorealiberalist states are hypercapitalist countries which have a maniacal alertness for national security, which guides them to enact protectionism for "their" corporations and ultimately launch wars against "rogue" states (because they now interpret states which don't want to participate in a global free market as challenging their national security). This seems to explain the United States' international behaviour, and increasingly - Canada's too.

The evidence is in and [... click on link below to expand to full post] the results are clear: Despite what the academy will have you believe, liberalism and realism are not antithetical to one another. On the contrary, these two theoretical perspectives have often been conjoined by scholars and political advisers intending to legitimize imperialist policy. The reemergence of idealist literature in the last few decades only aims at further solidifying what I call the ‘neorealiberal’ thesis.

Oddly, one of the sources of realist and liberal reconciliation can be found in the work of Immanuel Kant. A careful reading of Kant – a theorist often drawn-upon by liberals extolling the ‘timeless wisdom’ of liberalism – reveals that he was in fact a human nature realist in as much as he was a democratic peace theorist. Kant saw the world (back in 18th century) as “a savage state of nature in which war… constantly recurs… spring[ing] not from the nature of the state but from the nature of man”. If Kant can thus be assumed to be a human nature realist, his famous “Perpetual Peace” essay is a solution to the problem of continual warfare, which he takes to be a given. Kant is thus a realist in conceiving of a world that is naturally forced into conflict, but he is equally an idealist in his vision of how cooperation between republics and non-republics might some day overcome this problem. Recalling the historical context of the international and domestic settings in which Kant wrote, we can assume his writings in Perpetual Peace to be revolutionary in constructing a different world, a normatively better world that defied the contemporary status quo order and challenged the traditional and dominant structure defined by authoritarian absolutism and monarchical despotism.

Unfortunately, the new literature on Kant has failed to recall the context in which he wrote. As such, his work has been misappropriated to add credence to neorealiberalism. While the convergence of neoliberalism and neorealism has been identified by previous scholars, perhaps it is appropriate to review here the political implications of this unseemly marriage. Reading between the lines of Michael Doyle and Charles Kegley Jr.’s work, one notices how the neoliberal synthesis is merely a policy prescription designed to overcome the international conflicts anticipated by neorealists. That is, the preconceptions and assumptions made by neorealists and neoliberals are the same: The assume that the world is anarchical, that states are the main actors, and that states are forced to act in their national interest. Further, neoliberal solutions are framed within a neorealist lens. For example, Doyle draws from Kant in order to justify American aggression against non-liberal states while Charles Kegley Jr. seeks to place this aggression within the accepted realm of ‘self-help’. If neorealism is America’s academic justification for pursuing the national interest, then neoliberalism is America’s academic justification for enforcing the free market and democratic model upon the rest of the world. Neorealiberalism, then, calls for states to be aggressive proponents of the global enforcement of democracy and free markets upon other states, all within the name of the national interest.

Kegley, the former president of the International Studies Association, provides a concrete example of neorealiberalism in the academy. Despite his claims that the field is witnessing the emergence of a “neoidealist moment”, he fails to suggest how this moment will fundamentally challenge the dominance of realism within the discipline. After extolling the Wilsonian vision of liberal internationalism, Kegley then leads us back to the same dead-end conclusion that Robert Keohane came up with a decade earlier in “Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond” (1982). Kegley writes that there is a “need, not for the complete replacement of realism with a liberalist approach, but for a melding of the two”. Within this admission Kegley is merely reiterating an old argument (made by John Herz in 1951) that international “cooperation was advantageous and served the national interests”. Reframing the argument in the contemporary era, Kegley is thus asserting that a prudent policy of self-help would actually involve the enforcement of free markets and democracy upon as many states in the world as possible. In this way Kegley expresses the essence of neorealiberalism.

Neorealiberals further find much fodder in the groundbreaking work by Michael Doyle (1983 and thereafter). Doyle brought to liberalism what Waltz brought to realism: the prestige of tradition and a scientific, positivist methodology. Whereas realists call upon the work of Thucydides and Machiavelli to show the long tradition of realism, Doyle calls upon the canonical work of Kant into the picture for liberals to display a different but equally impressive tradition. Whereas Waltz used microeconomic theory and Durkheimian structuralism to put realism on a scientific footing, Doyle uses the father of the enlightenment to bring liberalism into the realm of scientific enquiry. However, just as the realist appropriation of Thucydides and Machiavelli is suspect, the liberal appropriation of Kant is also questionable. The problem with Doyle’s pioneering work, as noted by John MacMillan in Millennium, is that it is both an inaccurate reading and that it is used for unethical purposes. Indeed, MacMillan shows how the misappropriation of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” by liberal scholars such as Doyle, David Forsythe, Francis Fukuyama, Jack Levy, Bruce Russett, and George Sørensen are merely designed to add credence to their theoretical [read ideological] bias. Further, MacMillan demonstrates how the liberal interpretation of Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” has been misused by liberals to justify warmongering policies from liberal states towards non-liberal states. At its core, then, Doyle’s work serves to blur the distinction between the national interest and the pursuance of so-called liberal virtues such as democracy and free markets.

Despite the obvious convergence of neorealism and neoliberalism, students of international relations are told that in fact a ‘neo-neo debate’ is taking place. One of the current neoliberal agendas is espoused by Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis (1989), which claims that global peace and stability could be achieved if all states adhere to the liberal democratic capitalist model. In contrast, the contemporary neorealist rebuttal is found in Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis (1993), which warns of the potential for a future global war that would be based on civilization-oriented alliances between and among states. Yet are these two theories necessarily antithetical? No, they are not: We see the pessimistic view of Huntington reconciled with the hope of Fukuyama’s policy prescriptions. The result is neorealiberalism: If states do not follow the liberal democratic capitalist model, the world will experience a clash of civilizations, if states do follow the model, however, the world will witness the end of history. In this view, both neorealism and neoliberalism play a crucial role in justifying American (and increasingly, Canadian) foreign policy. Neorealism tells us about a horrible situation that the world might soon find itself in - thus justifying a policy of self-help. Neoliberalism explains that this horrible world projected by the neorealists can only be overcome if every state adopts a liberal capitalist democracy, yet again justifying a policy of interventionism in rogue states to help spread of neoliberal economic policies such as privatization and free trade.

[Diatribe] The 7 Wonders of Canada

In the spring of 2007, CBC Radio's Sounds Like Canada and CBC TV's The National teemed up to run a gushingly nationalistic competition regarding the choosing of seven "wonders" of Canada. The response was considerable:at leaset 25 000 nominations were cast, and a shortlist of 52 "wonders" was prepared. Finally, on June 7th, Shelagh Rogers and Peter Mansbridge revealed that the winners were 1) the Bay of Fundy; 2) Nahanni National Park; 3) the Northern Lights; 4) the Rockies; 5) Cabot Trail; 6) Niagara Falls; 7) Sleeping Giant (Ontario). I remember tuning into Shelagh Rogers' Sounds Like Canada every morning for nearly a month to hear this flag waving display of nationalism. I felt the whole project was reminiscent of the types of diversionary projects of nationalist-capitalist societies that keep citizenry from focusing on the important issues - like unemployment, health, education, and the increasingly violent role that Canada is playing in the world arena. The following is from a letter I wrote in to the radio program:

This Seven Wonders of Canada contest (like all of Sounds Like Canada’s shamelessly nationalistic projects) is hard to listen to for many Canadians who, like me, feel that a Canadian sense of civic responsibility has fallen by the wayside. These types of gushingly celebratory displays of patriotism have the effect of sidelining the important socioeconomic and political issues of our society.

With this in mind, I would like to suggest that the greatest ‘wonder’ of Canada – and certainly what keeps me ‘wondering’ – is how a nation as rich, as well-educated, and as diverse as Canada, backed by a plethora of natural resources, has allowed this society to degenerate socially, economically, politically, environmentally – and morally! To think that this nation allows tens of thousands of its own community members to go hungry and homeless every night; to consider that the very institutions of Canada’s liberal democracy, including UNIVERSAL public health care and AFFORDABLE education, have almost entirely disappeared; to think that a society that was once commended for its peaceful approach to international relations has just partaken in war crimes and human rights abuses in Afghanistan; and to think that our nation has consistently failed in our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions! These real experiences are absolutely astonishing – and the fact that we allow their existence is by far the greatest Canadian ‘wonder’ of all.

This may not sound like a “place”, but in a way this ‘degeneration’ has manifested within some type of locality – it has taken place on the typical Canadian street, in the Canadian workplace, the Canadian wilderness, the Canadian hospitals and schools, the Canadian household and thus, the Canadian ‘community’ as a whole.

Like the pyramids of Egypt, these Canadian wonders are wonders of the past! For we have destroyed our environment and natural resources, we have forgotten our role as proponents of world peace, and we have eroded the social fabric of our democracy. What a shame of a wonder.

[Introduction] The Organic Intellectual

A spectre is haunting the world - the spectre of "neoliberalism"! Indeed, our current world order is marked by deregulation, liberalization, and privatization! These policies are upheld (and enforced) by the arms of American imperialism - from ideological institutions that represent the
wealthy to the powerful military-industrial complex.

Yet as environmentalists, trade unionists and social justice activists (as well as some conscientious professors) have explained, this neoliberal order has witnessed the erosion of social democracy; it has seen the end of the public ideals such as universal health care and affordable education; and it has also seen the growth of inequality and environmental destruction.

This blog is thus dedicated to the construction of a more just, alternative world order! It takes aim at the structure and the ideology of "neoliberalism" - here in Canada and abroad.

One key thinker of the 20th century - Antonio Gramsci - once explained that intellectuals play a key role in the building of counter-hegemonic structures. Everyone can be an intellectual, but there are different kinds: There are 'traditional intellectuals', who unknowingly uphold and reproduce the dominant modes of ideological production, and there are 'organic intellectuals', who help the masses conceive of the possibilities of a better future. This site thus pays tribute to "the organic intellectual" as an idea, in the hopes that when a new world order does materialize, it will be one marked by justice and equality.