Nicaragua and Some Intellectuals
JULY 25, 2018
Fernando Bossi
It is evident that a sector of the intellectual left, have little or no understanding of the Caribbean Latin American reality, its historical struggles, its attempts to achieve unity, an indispensable condition without which it is impossible to speak of independence or socialism.
From their ivory towers they believe they have the authority to absolve or condemn any revolutionary process that takes place on the planet. With an ignorance bordering on bad intention, these individuals believe they enjoy a privilege that nobody – except maybe the dominant sectors – has attributed to them.
As soon as revolutionary processes appear, in the moment of masses rising up and popular triumphs, these subjects sprout everywhere, announcing that they had already predicted what was going to happen. Without blushing, they go on to support the revolutionary governments, by showing that they have influenced the events, and can play a stellar role advising and guiding (likeHeinz Dieterich, for example). Now, when the revolutionary process begins to suffer setbacks – which is in any case inevitable in any truly revolutionary process – these opportunists begin to distance themselves.
In the current case of Nicaragua, intellectuals with pathetic behavior have appeared. When the brother country is violently harassed by imperialism and its native allies, when they are planning a coup d’état financed by the United States, they, seated in their comfortable armchairs, set out to rant against the “dictatorship of Ortega-Murillo” .
A basic and elementary analysis: Whom does the fall of the Sandinista government benefit today? The Nicaraguan people ?, ALBA ?, Venezuela ?, Cuba ?, Democracy ?, Human rights? … On the contrary, we know the answer, since the main beneficiary today would be Yankee imperialism, the Nicaraguan oligarchy and, with it, all the oligarchies of the region.
This simple equation does not seem to be of importance to these academic intellectuals. Do they not suspect at any time that their positions coincide with those whom they consider reactionary forces? Or for them is the appearance more important than depth, form than content?
Where do they get their information to support what they say? From the right wing media? Of your friends, since friends must have the gift of truth in their words? Are they so innocent that they accept media waste without much objection?
Some of these intellectuals, who yesterday supported the Bolivarian government when it was attacked by the same ones that attack Nicaragua today, cannot understand that it is the same destabilizing action promoted by Yankee imperialism. Cannot understand? Or do not want to understand?
Could it be that the siren song of the “serious intellectuals” (Cardenal, Baltodano, Ramírez, Vargas, among others) has disturbed them? What kind of researchers are they if their sources are so precarious and biased?
On the other hand we must highlight the work deployed with great intellectual and investigative capacity by “compañer@s” like Stella Calloni, Stephen Sefton, Carlos Fonseca Terán, Jorge Capelán among many other true intellectuals at the service of the people and the truth.
Is not the pig’s fault but the one that feeds them.
Ultimately, these opportunist intellectuals are merely intellectuals, and we should not give them more importance than they really have. Intellectuals are people who in many cases contribute to the progress of humanity and in other cases are mere “opinionated professionals”, overvalued in the market of charlatanism.
The problem lies in the popular militancy, in the revolutionary organizations, which often place those intellectuals as counselors, infallible thinkers, teachers, guides. People’s leaders are not necessarily intellectuals as the term is commonly understood, although often both attributes are given, the case of Fidel and Chávez, Lenin and Mao for example.
Left wing intellectuals must then be at the service of the cause of the people, committed, they must be protagonists of popular struggles, not mere spectators; contribute when they must contribute and have done their research, or be silent, sicne many times it is wiser than to utter nonsense.
In this regard Mao contributed the following: “If you have not investigated a problem, you are deprived of the right to comment on it. Is this too brutal? No, at all. Since anyone who has not investigated the current state of the problem or its background, and ignores its essence, any opinion they express about it will not escape being nonsense … There are many who, just step out of their car and begin to scream, offering opinions, criticizing this and censoring that; but, in fact, all of them fail without exception, because their comments or criticisms, which are not based on meticulous research, are nothing but charlatanry”.
Revolutions do not need these NGO intellectuals. Revolutions need committed men and women, manual and intellectual workers, who struggle to overcome obstacles, willing to take on the transformations in good and bad times; with critical and self-critical spirit, capable of progressing and retreating, but always ready to deepen the revolution before the onslaught of the enemy.
The positions on Nicaragua of Alberto Acosta, Pablo Solom or Edgardo Lander, do not surprise me for example, detractors of Rafael Correa, Evo Morales and Nicolás Maduro respectively; but I am struck by the Chilean Manuel Cabieses, although not so much the Portuguese Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Others follow the same path that they have always done: attacking the popular governments from the “Left” when they are going through difficulties.
We already had the case of Libya, where a “Left” spokesman shouted for the overthrow of Colonel Kadafi, playing along with NATO with the consequences that we all know today. What do Alba Rico or Tariq Ali say about it now? As an Argentinian would say, they pretend to be stupid and look somewhere else.
Revolutionary forces must take note, who are true friends and who only appear to be. We too are sometimes responsible for giving importance to those who do not deserve it. As Jesus said, learn how to separate the chaff from the wheat.
Fernando Bossi
It is evident that a sector of the intellectual left, have little or no understanding of the Caribbean Latin American reality, its historical struggles, its attempts to achieve unity, an indispensable condition without which it is impossible to speak of independence or socialism.
From their ivory towers they believe they have the authority to absolve or condemn any revolutionary process that takes place on the planet. With an ignorance bordering on bad intention, these individuals believe they enjoy a privilege that nobody – except maybe the dominant sectors – has attributed to them.
As soon as revolutionary processes appear, in the moment of masses rising up and popular triumphs, these subjects sprout everywhere, announcing that they had already predicted what was going to happen. Without blushing, they go on to support the revolutionary governments, by showing that they have influenced the events, and can play a stellar role advising and guiding (likeHeinz Dieterich, for example). Now, when the revolutionary process begins to suffer setbacks – which is in any case inevitable in any truly revolutionary process – these opportunists begin to distance themselves.
In the current case of Nicaragua, intellectuals with pathetic behavior have appeared. When the brother country is violently harassed by imperialism and its native allies, when they are planning a coup d’état financed by the United States, they, seated in their comfortable armchairs, set out to rant against the “dictatorship of Ortega-Murillo” .
A basic and elementary analysis: Whom does the fall of the Sandinista government benefit today? The Nicaraguan people ?, ALBA ?, Venezuela ?, Cuba ?, Democracy ?, Human rights? … On the contrary, we know the answer, since the main beneficiary today would be Yankee imperialism, the Nicaraguan oligarchy and, with it, all the oligarchies of the region.
This simple equation does not seem to be of importance to these academic intellectuals. Do they not suspect at any time that their positions coincide with those whom they consider reactionary forces? Or for them is the appearance more important than depth, form than content?
Where do they get their information to support what they say? From the right wing media? Of your friends, since friends must have the gift of truth in their words? Are they so innocent that they accept media waste without much objection?
Some of these intellectuals, who yesterday supported the Bolivarian government when it was attacked by the same ones that attack Nicaragua today, cannot understand that it is the same destabilizing action promoted by Yankee imperialism. Cannot understand? Or do not want to understand?
Could it be that the siren song of the “serious intellectuals” (Cardenal, Baltodano, Ramírez, Vargas, among others) has disturbed them? What kind of researchers are they if their sources are so precarious and biased?
On the other hand we must highlight the work deployed with great intellectual and investigative capacity by “compañer@s” like Stella Calloni, Stephen Sefton, Carlos Fonseca Terán, Jorge Capelán among many other true intellectuals at the service of the people and the truth.
Is not the pig’s fault but the one that feeds them.
Ultimately, these opportunist intellectuals are merely intellectuals, and we should not give them more importance than they really have. Intellectuals are people who in many cases contribute to the progress of humanity and in other cases are mere “opinionated professionals”, overvalued in the market of charlatanism.
The problem lies in the popular militancy, in the revolutionary organizations, which often place those intellectuals as counselors, infallible thinkers, teachers, guides. People’s leaders are not necessarily intellectuals as the term is commonly understood, although often both attributes are given, the case of Fidel and Chávez, Lenin and Mao for example.
Left wing intellectuals must then be at the service of the cause of the people, committed, they must be protagonists of popular struggles, not mere spectators; contribute when they must contribute and have done their research, or be silent, sicne many times it is wiser than to utter nonsense.
In this regard Mao contributed the following: “If you have not investigated a problem, you are deprived of the right to comment on it. Is this too brutal? No, at all. Since anyone who has not investigated the current state of the problem or its background, and ignores its essence, any opinion they express about it will not escape being nonsense … There are many who, just step out of their car and begin to scream, offering opinions, criticizing this and censoring that; but, in fact, all of them fail without exception, because their comments or criticisms, which are not based on meticulous research, are nothing but charlatanry”.
Revolutions do not need these NGO intellectuals. Revolutions need committed men and women, manual and intellectual workers, who struggle to overcome obstacles, willing to take on the transformations in good and bad times; with critical and self-critical spirit, capable of progressing and retreating, but always ready to deepen the revolution before the onslaught of the enemy.
The positions on Nicaragua of Alberto Acosta, Pablo Solom or Edgardo Lander, do not surprise me for example, detractors of Rafael Correa, Evo Morales and Nicolás Maduro respectively; but I am struck by the Chilean Manuel Cabieses, although not so much the Portuguese Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Others follow the same path that they have always done: attacking the popular governments from the “Left” when they are going through difficulties.
We already had the case of Libya, where a “Left” spokesman shouted for the overthrow of Colonel Kadafi, playing along with NATO with the consequences that we all know today. What do Alba Rico or Tariq Ali say about it now? As an Argentinian would say, they pretend to be stupid and look somewhere else.
Revolutionary forces must take note, who are true friends and who only appear to be. We too are sometimes responsible for giving importance to those who do not deserve it. As Jesus said, learn how to separate the chaff from the wheat.
No comments:
Post a Comment