“From now on the extremist layers among the Sinhala majority will decisively rally round the Mahinda-regime while those layers that do not approve the war’s barbaric conclusion while supporting the LTTE’s military defeat will firmly turn towards the General.”

As soon as SF made the allegations against GR, he (SF) was dubbed a traitor by the extremist Sinhalese. I came to this conclusion after seeing the readers’ response to the above allegations in an article on lankanewspapers.com. However, I am not sure about the second line, that those who did not approve of the conclusion of the war will support the General. So far I have not sensed any vocal outrage from members of the majority community in regards to the conclusion of the war. Certainly, they supported the military defeat of the LTTE, however, they did not really care much as to how such a defeat came about… they were (and still are) more concerned about post-war rehabilitation efforts and outreach efforts as per the minorities. In general, the Sinhalese consensus is that the LTTE was a necessary evil that had to be wiped out all costs. In light of these remarks, I would then state that it is incorrect to assume that SF’s allegations in regards to post-war conduct would have caused a rift among the Sinhalese. Perhaps the author is looking for a way to decide how the Sinhalese will choose between two candidates – which is a separate issue altogether.

My issue was not with socialism; I actually agree with you on most of the economics. But my problem, such as it was, was in using China and Venezuela positively, as if they are countries Sri Lanka should imitate. Or at least that’s how I read your argument; correct me if I misinterpreted.

I think you hit my viewpoint on the head when you used the word “cynical” at one point in your response. I admit it; I am cynical, particularly when it comes to those in power and even more so when they loudly, continuously, proclaim their bona fides to the world. I also believe, cynically, that if someone adopts a certain political perspective merely to maintain their own power, then they are not true believers in what they adopt.

Chavez, for example, cloaks himself in socialism but the plain truth is that he is a power-hungry dictator. The fact that his government is so repressive tells me that power is his real agenda; socialism is merely the tool he uses to do it, as well as make himself look cool/revolutionary in the international arena. Like you, I’m not sure what he would do about a separatist movement, but like I wrote above, I do know what he does to those who disagree with him politically, and it’s similar to what goes on right now in Sri Lanka. Looks like a dictator, sounds like a dictator, acts like a dictator: must be a dictator!

It doesn’t matter to me if someone is a left-wing dictator or a right- wing dictator. Dictators are bad, at least in my thinking.

The same applies to China, which is not really a socialist country. They are an oligarchy. Nor are they for the people, as their capitalist policies seem to show. They (the government/party) are about keeping power.

To pull it back to Sri Lanka, I don’t believe that MR or SF are really Buddhist ultra-nationalists. I believe that MR is using it to keep himself in power, and SF is using it as a way to wrest power from MR and thus soothe his bruised ego. Cynical? Perhaps, but you gotta admit that that is what it looks like.

I’m not sure that you’re correct that the bourgeoisie in the more developed nations see their socialist programs as a pain in the rear that at best they have to put up with, at least not always. Here I’m referring to Europe, not the US. I will admit that I know relatively few Brits as my contacts are Continental; Germany, Netherlands, and Belgium especially. All of my friends there would be considered middle or upper class in their status and lifestyle and to a one they all generally support the social policies of their countries. OK, some of them disagree with some of the details of some programs but you can’t expect everyone to agree on everything. But overall their attitudes are positive. Admittedly, my experience is hardly scientific, but it is my general impression on the ground.

I would love to believe that “global socialism will have to rescue the productive forces from selfish interests and private ownership via re-orientation through common ownership dedicated to common welfare” but I just don’t see it happening. For me, the big problems in achieving this goal are human weakness and human personality. On paper, in a truly altruistic world, it would be wonderful. The reality is that even the best intentioned fail to maintain their altruism when they receive power and control, whatever the political/economic system. There are very few Mandelas and Sr. Teresa’s in the world; mostly there are Mubaraks, Putins, Mugabes, and Rajapaksas. They all act the same way.

That said, I would never say that we should just give up and go home. Despite the odds against achieving anything close to a socialist paradise (assuming we could all even agree on what that would look like), we ought to work towards it, each in our own way, because it’s the right thing to do. We must have compassion for all mankind, and must act accordingly.

But personally I feel that neither China nor Chavez are good role models to emulate.

I have no quarrel with most of the facts you’ve referred to. I’m well aware of the negative & positive elements in the advanced capitalist countries, and in the socialist countries with Stalinist origins. My disagreements arise in the way you try to interpret them and derive ‘a-historical’ and cynical conclusions from them.

I perceive contradictory events at a given moment in history as transient manifestations of evolving social forces. Remember, changing/evolving phenomena are by definition not perfect. Therefore, pointing at faults without deeper analysis will inevitably lead to misinterpretations. That’s why it’s important to find what directions the opposing social forces are headed towards. If the analysts fail to identify the big picture and understand the limitations in the historical context, then they could unwittingly end up as confused cynics; or perhaps find themselves even in the wrong camp.

Let me give an example: A few weeks back [19-21 November 2009] an important international conference took place in Caracas. It was a gathering of left parties and socialist groupings from all over the world. In that Hugo Chavez launched a call for a Fifth Socialist International as a continuation of Trotsky-led Fourth International. He said that the Fifth International should bring together left parties and social movements from all over the world as “an instrument for the unification and the articulation of the struggle of the peoples to save this planet”.

For me, this event is crucially significant because it shows Chavez’s awareness of the global nature of socialism. Socialists know that under capitalism the productive forces were progressively internationalized & developed to a very high level. But, now it has turned into a regressive system. It’s no longer a progressive mode. Lenin identified imperialism as “the highest stage of capitalism”, and he realized that Russia can only develop socialism as part of a future “Socialist federation of Europe”.

In other words, global socialism will have to rescue the productive forces from selfish interests and private ownership via re-orientation through common ownership dedicated to common welfare. [That’s exactly what Chavez did to Venezuela’s imperialist-controlled oil industry in his effort to eradicate poverty. As a result, local & global forces of reaction led by the Bush Administration began to mercilessly hound and bedevil him. Chavez bravely fought back reactionary forces with the full backing of the poor masses.]

Let me comment on the living standards in the west: True, mass movements in the west did force the states to introduce welfare states in several countries. [In Britain, the trade union movement built the Labour Party to defend the working people.] But the bourgeoisie always see the welfare states as a pain in the neck, and try to get rid of them at the first opportunity by hook or by crook; because they correctly see welfare systems as an obstacle for the smooth functioning of the capitalist profit-system.

Finally, let me comment on your point about the Tamil struggle: I think it is totally unfair and inappropriate to speculate and pass judgments on how Chavez would have reacted to a similar struggle. Perhaps, under his rule a separatist struggle would not have emerged in the first place. [China, being a country with Stalinist origins has special problem. I shall not go into all that here. Suffice it to say that China, along with Stalin, shared the delusion of ‘socialism in one county’ which paved the way for many of its blunders.] However, I’ll just add one point: Sri Lankan governments consistently failed to present an attractive political solution to the Tamil problem since Independence to the present day. In this sense, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s war, in my view, was a case of “putting the cart before the horse”. General Fonseka, as an army-chief, successfully carried out the task given to him by the politicians. It’s the politicians who should be responsible for their failure in putting the horse before the cart.

Ok point taken. I guess we won’t know which path he takes unless he wins.
He scares the heck out of me, so I won’t be crying the blues, if we never indeed do find out. But on the other its like watching a horror movie. I can’t help but keep watching the TV from the corner of my eye to see it to the end.

If I understand correctly, socialism refers to a set of economic theories advocating government ownership and administration of the means of production and resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all people. The common man is the focus of socialism, as opposed to social and economic elites. Neither Chavez nor the Chinese are good models for this; in fact rather the opposite, as they only look out for themselves and their allies. They may say they are for social and economic justice, but actions speak louder than words. They have merely replaced one set of social and economic oppressors with another.

It seems to me that there are other examples that we can follow, for example some of the European states. They seem to have followed the best combination of capitalism and socialism found thus far. True, no country has found the perfect solution to economic disparity, but some of European countries have found a better way to balance freedom and human rights with alleviation of poverty. Not perfect, I again say, but better than China or Venezuela.

I suppose it depends one what your priorities are. If all you care about is economic development, then by all means, imitate China.

However, if you also value freedom, on both a social as well as individual level, then Chavez and China are NOT who you want to follow. How do you suppose China would deal with the Tamil question? Probably in the same way it has dealt with Tibet and the Far West; by not addressing the problem but instead trying to overwhelm it to make it go away, along with a heavy dose of police and secret service oppression. And how do you think Chavez deals with pesky reporters that don’t toe his line? In a way similar to the way the current SL government does; not through engagement, debate, and persuasion, but through physical and economic force.

I can’t understand anyone saying China’s economic development, which has only benefited a few people relative to the total population, is successful as defined by socialist theories. It remains to be seen how their experiment will ultimately turn out but China does seem to be increasingly capitalist, doesn’t it? The whole structure depends heavily on force and oppression. It also seems that the divisions between the haves and have-not’s are even greater than ever; hardly a socialist vision for society. I suspect the average European is much better off than the average Chinese, and in more ways than just economically.

Nor do I understand lauding Chavez as a role model. He is a left wing demagogue, which is no better than being a right wing demagogue. A demagogue is a demagogue, no matter how he costumes himself. Chavez is more concerned with his own power than with his country. The fact that he cloaks his raw power in socialist rhetoric only does socialism a disservice by making socialism look bad. (Not to say that his opposition is much better; we can only pity the average Venezuelan, caught between these two alternatives.)

I’m also not convinced that economic development and socialism necessarily go hand in hand. Looking around the world, it seems to me that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes capitalism seems to work, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes in certain situations within a country socialism works better than capitalism, or vice-versa. Perhaps the solution is a moderate and rational combination of the two, depending upon the specifics of a given situation. Of course, this would mean giving up easy slogans and formulas and really thinking flexibly and creatively, and admitting it if something doesn’t work and trying something new. Not many politicians are willing to do this.

China, one could argue, isn’t really socialist, but rather an oligarchy. The same could be said about Chavez albeit with a cult-of-personality twist. Both have, in fact, benefited certain sectors of their respective societies; that can’t be denied. But given their actions, the way they go about doing it, shows that they are less about “the people” and more about preserving their own advantages.

Unfortunately, we seem to have little choice in our election. True, SF COULD turn out any number of ways, whereas it is almost certain MR will stay the same. But just because SF COULD change his stripes doesn’t mean he will. In fact, if history is any guide, he probably won’t. I know it’s cliche, but it’s also true: politics in SL is akin to Animal Farm, and there is no reason to believe that the pigs, should they take over, won’t morph into the oppressors they replaced. I said pity the Venezuelans – heck – I also say pity us!

Of course there is infinite number of possibilities for SF to evolve in the future. But I’ve selected two significant possibilities one of which is Mangala Samaraweera’s. The other one (that of Chavez) I merely claim is the more desirable one. And the possibility of that happening is dependent on many global and local factors. That’s what I say in my article; not that SF is going to invariably end up becoming the Chavez of Asia. So please follow the logic of my argument closely.

If you think that he’s more likely to end up as Mussolini, for example, it’s your duty to substantiate your view with logical argument. But, remember that I never claim that SF will necessarily end up as a Chavez. I merely prescribe to him that he should try and become one, for his own good and for the benefit of Sri Lanka as a whole. Get it? [Logic is a difficult subject. Isn’t it Nicolai?

Of course there is infinite number of possibilities for SF would evolve in the future. But I’ve selected two significant possibilities one of which is Mangala Samaraweera’s. The other one (that of Chavez) I merely claim is the more desirable one. And the possibility of that happening is dependent on many global and local factors. That’s what I say in my article; not that SF is going to invariably end up becoming the Chavez of Asia. So please follow the logic of my argument closely.

If you think that he’s more likely to end up as Mussolini, for example, it’s your duty to substantiate your view with logical argument. But, remember that I never claim that SF will necessarily end up as a Chavez. I merely prescribe to him that he should try and become one, for his own good and for the benefit of Sri Lanka as a whole. Get it? [Logic is a difficult subject. Isn’t it Nicolai?