Thursday, January 26, 2006

Response to Stella - Rajendra Bisessar

I will use this opportunity to commence my response to Stella’s article “This is worthy of discussion for all of Guyana, Bisessar [Part 1]” dated Sunday, 23 January, 2006.

It’s not easy and it would be quite lengthy covering a couple of columns trying to deal with the kind of spin that Stella has put on many issues.

In a previous article I pointed out that Stella seems to have accepted the “two race-based party” slogan as true, and as the basis for analysis without first proving that it is so in reality. I cannot recall that she responded.

I also pointed out to her that her dependence on the media may distort her understanding of what is taking place as the media is usually negative. The same may be true of Chavez.

In “” Kersap Shekhdar stated: “The media of this country (America) are no longer independent news organs but are shills and “whores” for the government and the powerful.” He continued, “An officially supported apparent campaign of thought control is underway, as the government and its media channels barrage the public with slogans, misinformation and propaganda terms. It goes undetected by the vast majority of people, for the most part the campaign succeeds.”

Is it possible that Stella proves the truth of this statement as she sees nothing positive taking place in Venezuela? And even when she mentions something that can be seen as positive she, utilizing some kind of convoluted logic, makes it out to be not good.

I would like among other things, to correct Stella’s distortion, and misapplication of what I said with regard to Marx’s position on socialism/communism to suit her narrow interest to criticise Chavez and by extension make the situation analogous to the Guyana government.

Stella suggested that Marx ideology allows for the distribution of wealth according to need and not utility and that the citizens, regardless of their occupation, and would enjoy a relatively similar life style” with no disparity. She concluded that “Chavez form of socialism/communism” is not as defined by Marx.

Anyone who read my article would recall that I specifically differentiated socialism from communism. Socialism is from according to ability to according to work done and very futuristic. Communism is from according ability to according to needs.

Stella, why are you accusing Chavez of not practising a present impossibility, communism?

And why are you ignoring my reference to objective laws and the nature of the relations of production and productive forces.

It seems that even though, as you admitted, I defined the terms well, you still seem not to understand them.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment. It is in the moderation process now and will be posted once it is approved.