Futuríveis
sábado, maio 13, 2006
The words and symbols of politics are chucked about liberally, leaving little trace
...
The words and symbols of politics are chucked about liberally, leaving little trace. Political rhetoric seems to exist on a different plane to political action. 'Nationalisation' once meant a major shift in capital, the state direction of industry and the incorporation of mass unions: now it means a fudging of ownership and discussions about new terms, but we'll have to wait 170-odd days to find out for sure. Tanks foreign gas companies' lawns would have once sparked major diplomatic incidents, or wars that meant the loss or gain of territory: now everybody carries on as if nothing was happening, with the receptionist at one occupied refinery saying that the soldiers are 'guarding things…. Making sure everything's in order. That's all we know' (10).
Political language has become more extravagant as it has been emptied out. Fidel Castro experienced decades of economic embargos from the USA and hostilities that at one stage approached nuclear war, but he never approached Hugo Chavez's fiery rudeness. There is a high level of tolerance of political rudeness, which is perhaps seen as necessary to maintain stability in a disgruntled continent. Ambassadors maintain relations behind the scenes while the president blows off steam in the streets.
Democratic and revolutionary rhetoric flies around too. Every political imitative is prefixed with 'the people's', as if this were Bolshevik Russia circa 1919. Chavez, Morales and Castro dubbed their exchange of trade goods and social assistance 'the people's trade agreement'. The operations chief for the Bolivian state energy company Nelson Cabrera said: 'In this decree, is the hope of the people'. Morales announced that oil and gas were now 'under the control of the Bolivian people'.
...
spiked-politics | Article | Bolivia: 'nationalisation' isn't what it seems
The words and symbols of politics are chucked about liberally, leaving little trace. Political rhetoric seems to exist on a different plane to political action. 'Nationalisation' once meant a major shift in capital, the state direction of industry and the incorporation of mass unions: now it means a fudging of ownership and discussions about new terms, but we'll have to wait 170-odd days to find out for sure. Tanks foreign gas companies' lawns would have once sparked major diplomatic incidents, or wars that meant the loss or gain of territory: now everybody carries on as if nothing was happening, with the receptionist at one occupied refinery saying that the soldiers are 'guarding things…. Making sure everything's in order. That's all we know' (10).
Political language has become more extravagant as it has been emptied out. Fidel Castro experienced decades of economic embargos from the USA and hostilities that at one stage approached nuclear war, but he never approached Hugo Chavez's fiery rudeness. There is a high level of tolerance of political rudeness, which is perhaps seen as necessary to maintain stability in a disgruntled continent. Ambassadors maintain relations behind the scenes while the president blows off steam in the streets.
Democratic and revolutionary rhetoric flies around too. Every political imitative is prefixed with 'the people's', as if this were Bolshevik Russia circa 1919. Chavez, Morales and Castro dubbed their exchange of trade goods and social assistance 'the people's trade agreement'. The operations chief for the Bolivian state energy company Nelson Cabrera said: 'In this decree, is the hope of the people'. Morales announced that oil and gas were now 'under the control of the Bolivian people'.
...
spiked-politics | Article | Bolivia: 'nationalisation' isn't what it seems
posted by CMT, 3:32 da tarde
