Interview with Luis Britto García Ángel Ricardo Gómez, El Universal 15/11/2010
Do you think that intellectuals are fulfilling their role in Venezuela today? Why?
"I first distinguish between knowledge workers, those dealing with the manipulation of symbols and are the operators of the ideological superstructure, and simply called intellectuals, those who used the prominence in their field to be active in the social debate , political and cultural. An accountant is an intellectual worker, Jean Paul Sartre is an intellectual. Each category has a role. A large number of knowledge workers manage educational institutions, business management, agencies advertising, trying to maintain an order that requires changes. And a large group of scholars actively engaged in group discussion, analysis, reporting, proposing changes.
Elías Pino says there are two types of intellectuals, both necessary for a society, which becomes "a metamorphosis promoter and spokesman for essential reforms" and that "strives to maintain and legitimize certain type of situation, even one that does not have good press, "Do you agree with this rating? "If not, what would you suggest?
"I agree that there are these two guys, but he speaks of formal categories or adjective, not substance or substance. Lenin and Goebbels promoted metamorphosis and were spokesmen for reform, but among the goals of either half the abyss. Nor is it like to maintain and legitimize the neoliberal populism to do with socialism. Judging intellectual judge defends project.
you are openly fond of President Hugo Chávez and his policies "Chavez is considered an intellectual? What do you feel gives you an intellectual like the Bolivarian Revolution?
"I would be a Marxist intellectual. To the extent that the Bolivarian process move towards public ownership, free education, social security, reducing inequality, political participation and social majorities and Latin American integration and global, I'm with him. I think I contribute to the Bolivarian Revolution a disinterested assessment of their successes, not mediated by patronage, appointments and privileges, and a fair criticism and constructive as possible what I call its goals to accomplish.
What is your definition of socialism of the XXI century?
"The Socialism of the Third Millennium, as I prefer to call it, is fundamental premises of social control of the main means of production and democratic control over the use and disposal of them. It will bring everyone according to his ability and receives according to his work. The historical development requires some updating. You can not expect a full development of the industrial productive forces in all countries, because the planet does not have the resources or energy for it. Consumerism has to be replaced by an economy of savings, recycling and regeneration. To the extent that the most valuable asset is information, and it can be disseminated and multiplied at no cost, will be indispensable social appropriation for free. The more fluid to the unimaginable computing processes of production, distribution and democratic consultation, leaving free time for the true purpose of life, love, research truth and the creation of beauty.
For many thinkers have taken two approaches to the polarization, or silent, in complicity with political power or become reactive. Do you think that is? Why?
"First, we clarify what the polarization there no bias when leftists threw us into the forest from helicopters? When Cordero Labana buried alive and they cut the hands of the painter Peter Rojas? "There was no bias when a party of intellectuals silenced or justified these facts? How soon after winning the most important American literary could not publish on a regular basis in a journal for thirteen years? Today anyone imprisoned or exiled for his views, as happened before with Pedro Duno and Richard Izarra. I do not think there is silence about power: Aporrea simply verify the amount of criticism that made the process even his supporters. For my part, critical praise their successes and their failures promptly. He appealed to the Supreme Court along with my friend Fermín Toro Jiménez to request annulment of treaties against double taxation and the submission of our contracts in the public interest to foreign arbitrators. And I managed to veto a law allowing privatization of rivers, lakes and lagoons.
Do you feel that no analysis the country beyond the short term, beyond political parties yesterday, today and tomorrow?
-The left looks at the long term because it is future-oriented. The right does not pass the past.
Where are the new Rufino Blanco Fombona Vallenilla Laureano Lanz, José Ignacio Cabrujas, Juan Liscano?
-Jorge Luis Borges said "do not know our contemporaries." Just blindness prevents identify and honor those who give us light. Nazoa Hannibal died recently, a sun of lucidity and intelligence, keeping up to their positions and grace. There is Vladimir Acosta, who attended with brilliance analysis social and historical study of the collective imagination. Iraida Vargas and Mario Sanoja monumental works have been developed without which we can not understand the Venezuelan. Roberto Hernández Montoya has a penetrating critique, irony, Voltaire. Recall the incomparable works in their respective fields Ramón Palomares, Nicolas Curiel, Roman Chalbaud, Ángel Palacios, Regulus Perez, Fruto Vivas, Laura Antillano, Stefania Mosca, Eva Golinger, Soleydis Linares, and left to enumerate because it would be days. Let's open our eyes that light on.
Do you think there are proposals for country by Venezuelan intellectuals? What is yours?
"The proposal does not pass the conservative intelligentsia kick adecopeyana a Utopia that never existed, or return to a neoliberal Jauja plummeted worldwide. I propose that we accelerate the transition to socialism, to defend against threats of looting of our wealth, the oil revenues to build infrastructure for a sustainable economy not dependent on oil and move towards an economy of knowledge production. We have to do it, and we will.
Do you think that intellectuals are fulfilling their role in Venezuela today? Why?
"I first distinguish between knowledge workers, those dealing with the manipulation of symbols and are the operators of the ideological superstructure, and simply called intellectuals, those who used the prominence in their field to be active in the social debate , political and cultural. An accountant is an intellectual worker, Jean Paul Sartre is an intellectual. Each category has a role. A large number of knowledge workers manage educational institutions, business management, agencies advertising, trying to maintain an order that requires changes. And a large group of scholars actively engaged in group discussion, analysis, reporting, proposing changes.
Elías Pino says there are two types of intellectuals, both necessary for a society, which becomes "a metamorphosis promoter and spokesman for essential reforms" and that "strives to maintain and legitimize certain type of situation, even one that does not have good press, "Do you agree with this rating? "If not, what would you suggest?
"I agree that there are these two guys, but he speaks of formal categories or adjective, not substance or substance. Lenin and Goebbels promoted metamorphosis and were spokesmen for reform, but among the goals of either half the abyss. Nor is it like to maintain and legitimize the neoliberal populism to do with socialism. Judging intellectual judge defends project.
you are openly fond of President Hugo Chávez and his policies "Chavez is considered an intellectual? What do you feel gives you an intellectual like the Bolivarian Revolution?
"I would be a Marxist intellectual. To the extent that the Bolivarian process move towards public ownership, free education, social security, reducing inequality, political participation and social majorities and Latin American integration and global, I'm with him. I think I contribute to the Bolivarian Revolution a disinterested assessment of their successes, not mediated by patronage, appointments and privileges, and a fair criticism and constructive as possible what I call its goals to accomplish.
What is your definition of socialism of the XXI century?
"The Socialism of the Third Millennium, as I prefer to call it, is fundamental premises of social control of the main means of production and democratic control over the use and disposal of them. It will bring everyone according to his ability and receives according to his work. The historical development requires some updating. You can not expect a full development of the industrial productive forces in all countries, because the planet does not have the resources or energy for it. Consumerism has to be replaced by an economy of savings, recycling and regeneration. To the extent that the most valuable asset is information, and it can be disseminated and multiplied at no cost, will be indispensable social appropriation for free. The more fluid to the unimaginable computing processes of production, distribution and democratic consultation, leaving free time for the true purpose of life, love, research truth and the creation of beauty.
For many thinkers have taken two approaches to the polarization, or silent, in complicity with political power or become reactive. Do you think that is? Why?
"First, we clarify what the polarization there no bias when leftists threw us into the forest from helicopters? When Cordero Labana buried alive and they cut the hands of the painter Peter Rojas? "There was no bias when a party of intellectuals silenced or justified these facts? How soon after winning the most important American literary could not publish on a regular basis in a journal for thirteen years? Today anyone imprisoned or exiled for his views, as happened before with Pedro Duno and Richard Izarra. I do not think there is silence about power: Aporrea simply verify the amount of criticism that made the process even his supporters. For my part, critical praise their successes and their failures promptly. He appealed to the Supreme Court along with my friend Fermín Toro Jiménez to request annulment of treaties against double taxation and the submission of our contracts in the public interest to foreign arbitrators. And I managed to veto a law allowing privatization of rivers, lakes and lagoons.
Do you feel that no analysis the country beyond the short term, beyond political parties yesterday, today and tomorrow?
-The left looks at the long term because it is future-oriented. The right does not pass the past.
Where are the new Rufino Blanco Fombona Vallenilla Laureano Lanz, José Ignacio Cabrujas, Juan Liscano?
-Jorge Luis Borges said "do not know our contemporaries." Just blindness prevents identify and honor those who give us light. Nazoa Hannibal died recently, a sun of lucidity and intelligence, keeping up to their positions and grace. There is Vladimir Acosta, who attended with brilliance analysis social and historical study of the collective imagination. Iraida Vargas and Mario Sanoja monumental works have been developed without which we can not understand the Venezuelan. Roberto Hernández Montoya has a penetrating critique, irony, Voltaire. Recall the incomparable works in their respective fields Ramón Palomares, Nicolas Curiel, Roman Chalbaud, Ángel Palacios, Regulus Perez, Fruto Vivas, Laura Antillano, Stefania Mosca, Eva Golinger, Soleydis Linares, and left to enumerate because it would be days. Let's open our eyes that light on.
Do you think there are proposals for country by Venezuelan intellectuals? What is yours?
"The proposal does not pass the conservative intelligentsia kick adecopeyana a Utopia that never existed, or return to a neoliberal Jauja plummeted worldwide. I propose that we accelerate the transition to socialism, to defend against threats of looting of our wealth, the oil revenues to build infrastructure for a sustainable economy not dependent on oil and move towards an economy of knowledge production. We have to do it, and we will.
0 comments:
Post a Comment