ND 17 oktober, quote econoom Arjo Klamer: "Het kabinet is hard bezig Nederland uit de economische crisis te leiden. De echte crisis is echter onze onhoudbare cultuur gericht op geld en economische groei."
Hiermee zullen de meer milieubewusten en de kritische politicologen en economen onder ons het waarschijnlijk wel mee eens zijn. Het valt echter op dat er een paradox schuilt in deze uitspraak. Aan de ene kant doet het kabinet haar best, wat positief gewaardeerd wordt; aan de andere kant zitten we gevangen in een cultuur van geld en verrijking.
Wat echter opvalt, bijvoorbeeld in het DSB debacle, is het feit dat juist een deel van de politieke elite niet alleen deel is van deze cultuur, maar deze cultuur uitdraagt.
Opvallend genoeg zijn het voormalige bewindslieden zoals Gerrit Zalm, Frank de Grave en Robin Linschoten die de DSB en daarmee DSB praktijken dienden. Dit is te meer opvallend bij Zalm die kritisch was over DSB tijdens zijn ministerschap. Bovendien vertrok hij als hoofdeconoom bij de DSB Bank om een groot deel van de Nederlandse financi?le sector uit het slop te trekken, Fortis en ABN Amro.
De verleiding is groot te wijzen op het feit dat de VVD hofleverancier lijkt te zijn voor DSB topmannen. Te vrezen valt, dat de cultuur van verrijking, geldverstrekking en ongeremde groei verder strekt dan een enkele partij.
In aanvulling op een economische en een culturele crisis, zou ik daarom stellen dat wij ook te maken hebben met een derde, politiek-bestuurlijke, crisis. Veel politieke bewindslieden en bewindslieden in spe, zijn gepokt en gemazeld onder een nieuw-rechtse economische gesternte, of een variant daarvan: derde-weg socialisme ('paars'). Is er reden om aan te nemen dat juist deze politieke voorhoede haar eigen politiek-economische paradigma's kan ontstijgen en Nederland economisch, politiek en cultureel uit het slop kan trekken?
Sydney Rittenberg 'China not a Land of Darkness'
Wiki: ***Sidney Rittenberg (August 14, 1921; Chinese name: L? D?nb?i ???) is an American interpreter and scholar who lived in China from 1944 to 1979. He worked closely with People's Republic of China (PRC) founder Mao Zedong, military leader Zhu De, and key statesman Zhou Enlai, and other leaders of the Communist party during the war, and was the only American citizen to join the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He was with these central Communist leaders at Yan'an and was able to experience much of the life of Mao and his supporters. Later, he was imprisoned in solitary confinement twice, for a total of 16 years. He witnessed first-hand much of what occurred at upper levels of the CCP and knew many of its leaders personally.****
YESTERDAY I attended a brunch lecture by Sydney Rittenberg, organized by the Yale Club in Beijing. Reflecting on the political institutions of the US and China, he stated that he is 'against a multiparty system tomorrow' in China. He also criticized the American two party monopoly, and the rule of big money ('no one gets to be candidate without getting his primaries financed'). Therefore, the US does not provide much of a blueprint for China's democratization. When the US congressmen speak about 'the need for China to democratize', Rittenberg asks: 'and how did you get here? ? Nobody has the right to point the finger and tell China what to do, a country that has achieved so much'.
In regard to democracy in China, Rittenberg observes that the 'Chinese have never in history been freer than today' in terms of individual freedom. However, there's a need for deeper understanding of 'democratic management'. This should include better protection of lawyers and journalists who expose corruption, but also free debate. He contends the popular Chinese opinion that free debate leads to chaos, rather the opposite is the case: free debate acts as a 'safety valve' and prevents chaos. Recent government reforms seem to be encouraging according to Rittenberg. For instance, the election of local government officials now requires consultation of non-CP locals, although there is still vetting by higher officials. However, this some questions remain, for instance, how to prevent the capture of politics by local lead families or dominant business. This question is also relevant at other levels of governance, the Communist Party is constantly concerned over dominant (business) factions to catch the leadership.
Rittenberg also addressed the problems with corruption in China. According to Rittenberg, one must distinct different kinds of corruption, some corruption is like the mafia, others are forms of corruption are a 'necessary' outcome of holes in the governance system. Some corruption serves legitimate purposes, for instance when officials pay surcharge on coal supplies to keep factories running and in so doing save employment. At the same time it is encouraging to see that the government is holding campaigns in big cities to fight corruption. But since corruption is systematic, it will take a long time to redress, it is 'the way that thing are done: it will take a long time, it will probably take the elevation of the economic system.'
Apart from Rittenberg?s opions about today?s China, we also learned about his unique past experience. Asked about his opinion about Chairman Mao, Rittenberg recalls his meetings with Mao; how Mao would listen attentively and learn from the younger Rittenberg about the United States. He remembers the young Mao as a genius, pragmatic, humble and a good listener. However, citing the official stance that Mao did 70% good, Rittenberg also regrets the fact that Mao experimented with the lives of hundreds of millions during the Great Leap Forward. This is Mao's fault, as he deemed himself great enough to experiment with so many lives, but it was also a systematic fault; by the time of the GLF leaders were too isolated from the rest of the populace. Rittenberg was imprisoned from 1949-55, falsely accused for being a spy. From 1968 to 1977, Rittenberg was again imprisoned, for his supposed criticism and activism agains the dictatorship and bureaucracy. When asked where he got the inspiration and energy to make it through so much hardship, Rittenberg jokingly answers 'perhaps stupidity'. However, he also experienced the power of forgiveness and healing, it is impossible to live with bitterness, to do so would be to lose.
Rittenberg ended his presentation by a call for better relations between the US and China. 'If I could ask God for one thing in this world, it would be good US-China relations... the core of the world working together is US-China relations.' Turning to the audience, mostly Americans, he encouraged them to 'spread knowledge, to let people know: China is not a land of darkness.'
YESTERDAY I attended a brunch lecture by Sydney Rittenberg, organized by the Yale Club in Beijing. Reflecting on the political institutions of the US and China, he stated that he is 'against a multiparty system tomorrow' in China. He also criticized the American two party monopoly, and the rule of big money ('no one gets to be candidate without getting his primaries financed'). Therefore, the US does not provide much of a blueprint for China's democratization. When the US congressmen speak about 'the need for China to democratize', Rittenberg asks: 'and how did you get here? ? Nobody has the right to point the finger and tell China what to do, a country that has achieved so much'.
In regard to democracy in China, Rittenberg observes that the 'Chinese have never in history been freer than today' in terms of individual freedom. However, there's a need for deeper understanding of 'democratic management'. This should include better protection of lawyers and journalists who expose corruption, but also free debate. He contends the popular Chinese opinion that free debate leads to chaos, rather the opposite is the case: free debate acts as a 'safety valve' and prevents chaos. Recent government reforms seem to be encouraging according to Rittenberg. For instance, the election of local government officials now requires consultation of non-CP locals, although there is still vetting by higher officials. However, this some questions remain, for instance, how to prevent the capture of politics by local lead families or dominant business. This question is also relevant at other levels of governance, the Communist Party is constantly concerned over dominant (business) factions to catch the leadership.
Rittenberg also addressed the problems with corruption in China. According to Rittenberg, one must distinct different kinds of corruption, some corruption is like the mafia, others are forms of corruption are a 'necessary' outcome of holes in the governance system. Some corruption serves legitimate purposes, for instance when officials pay surcharge on coal supplies to keep factories running and in so doing save employment. At the same time it is encouraging to see that the government is holding campaigns in big cities to fight corruption. But since corruption is systematic, it will take a long time to redress, it is 'the way that thing are done: it will take a long time, it will probably take the elevation of the economic system.'
Apart from Rittenberg?s opions about today?s China, we also learned about his unique past experience. Asked about his opinion about Chairman Mao, Rittenberg recalls his meetings with Mao; how Mao would listen attentively and learn from the younger Rittenberg about the United States. He remembers the young Mao as a genius, pragmatic, humble and a good listener. However, citing the official stance that Mao did 70% good, Rittenberg also regrets the fact that Mao experimented with the lives of hundreds of millions during the Great Leap Forward. This is Mao's fault, as he deemed himself great enough to experiment with so many lives, but it was also a systematic fault; by the time of the GLF leaders were too isolated from the rest of the populace. Rittenberg was imprisoned from 1949-55, falsely accused for being a spy. From 1968 to 1977, Rittenberg was again imprisoned, for his supposed criticism and activism agains the dictatorship and bureaucracy. When asked where he got the inspiration and energy to make it through so much hardship, Rittenberg jokingly answers 'perhaps stupidity'. However, he also experienced the power of forgiveness and healing, it is impossible to live with bitterness, to do so would be to lose.
Rittenberg ended his presentation by a call for better relations between the US and China. 'If I could ask God for one thing in this world, it would be good US-China relations... the core of the world working together is US-China relations.' Turning to the audience, mostly Americans, he encouraged them to 'spread knowledge, to let people know: China is not a land of darkness.'
Some notes on EU social democracy from a skype chat with a friend
Germans just ditched the SPD, Spain's PSOE may be voted out, Cameron is waiting...
As Europe is in the middle of an economic crisis, the elections seem to be won by the right. When social needs are up, this seems a paradoxical development. However, it's not necessarily the market conservatives that win (see Holland). Moreover, as governments turn right in the EU, Social Democracy is experiencing its own crisis.
In the midst of a financial crisis, the answers hitherto seem to be even more market en and credit. This doesn't seem like a structural answer. There is a feeling that the solution doesn't lie in another variation to neo-liberalism, thus the neo-liberal middle with third way social democracy at its core, is crumbling. It's not a problem of the left, I think that they gain across Europe. For instance, the left (Linke) actually won in Germany. However, Social Democratic parties have lost their grip and majority over that side of the spectrum.
As Europe is in the middle of an economic crisis, the elections seem to be won by the right. When social needs are up, this seems a paradoxical development. However, it's not necessarily the market conservatives that win (see Holland). Moreover, as governments turn right in the EU, Social Democracy is experiencing its own crisis.
In the midst of a financial crisis, the answers hitherto seem to be even more market en and credit. This doesn't seem like a structural answer. There is a feeling that the solution doesn't lie in another variation to neo-liberalism, thus the neo-liberal middle with third way social democracy at its core, is crumbling. It's not a problem of the left, I think that they gain across Europe. For instance, the left (Linke) actually won in Germany. However, Social Democratic parties have lost their grip and majority over that side of the spectrum.
EU passports for sale
On the www.guardian.co.uk I came across an advertisement by http://www.crownpassport.com/. Who claims to offer "second citizenship, naturalization programs for visa-free travel world wide." They do that by acquiring Latvian passports. As Latvia is an EU member state, and part of the Schengen area, Latvian citizenship will grant access to the rest of Europe. Is this an abuse under the Schengen agreement? Does the Latvian government know about this practice? Does Latvia even profit from this? Latvia is one of the worst hit EU countries in the economic crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)