The modern socialist is an evolution of the communist man from the past ...and the current master of implementing capital market initiatives

The modern socialist

One of the legacies of the Grenada Revolution is a strong residue of anti-communist, anti-socialist rhetoric. For the most part, persons who were hurt by, or otherwise disagreed with Grenada’s 1979 to 1983 experiment, continue to dislike or hate those who were involved with the revolution; and, even more, to hate and dislike the ideology itself.

This attitude of hatred remains, even though the Grenada Revolution ended over 30 years ago, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and there is no longer a Soviet Union. The haters have either failed or refused to acknowledge the sociopolitical changes around them, and/or the ideological evolution that has occurred since.

I do not agree fully with the philosophy of Francis Fukuyama in his seminal work, “The End of History and the Last Man’’, but, I find this following quotation instructive: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government’’.

In the modern world only China and Cuba can be said to be “communist’’ states. In fact, that may not be a fair characterization of China. Indeed, what we are certain about China is that it is a one-party state and it has mastered the capital economic system. It has recorded historic economic growth and private enterprise flourishes, although the state continues to have control over major economic sectors. There is no doubt that the Chinese have found a model that works and they are now one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on earth.

Cuba, for its part, is a one-party state as well. In recent times under President Raúl Castro they have tried to make some reforms. However, their hands are largely tied by the wicked, unjust and archaic United States embargo, the same United States that maintains Most Favorable Trade status with China.

Now, for all the leaders in recent times who have practiced socialism, they have maintained western democratic principles. The late great Hugo Chavez, who led the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela during his time, held and won elections fair and square at every turn. His successor won the last election.

Lula de Silva, the former president of Brazil, won elections by the ballot and was able to deliver unprecedented economic growth to Brazil. Moreover, when his constitutional two terms expired there was a groundswell of support to change the constitution for him to continue and contest a third term. He politely declined.

Eva Morales of Bolivia just won a landslide victory for a third term. His economic programs have being lauded by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The two financial institutions were initially worried about his elevation as president.

Morales has stood firm against the U.S. attempt to eradicate the coca plant, which is an important economic and traditional plant for the Andean people of Bolivia. He famously once said, “I am not a drug trafficker, I am a coca farmer’’. Despite his disagreement with the U.S. he has continued to deliver for the Bolivian people.

The fact is the modern socialist has become a master of implementing capital market initiatives. I will proffer that where they differ from the Friedman approach to capitalism is that they do not subscribe to the philosophy that market forces will take care of the poor and needy in society. And, thus, they have embarked on serious social programs as safety nets to ensure that the poor and downtrodden in our societies are cared for. They have embarked on, and they have invested a large percentage of their national budgets on education, healthcare, housing and so on.

They have implemented policies where basic needs such as water, electricity and sanitation are addressed by the state directly, thereby ensuring that those who need the services the most are indeed the beneficiaries.

One can recall the Republicans in the U.S. branding President Barack Obama as a socialist for implementing the healthcare initiative commonly referred to as “Obamacare”. Persons seem to forget that the president of France is a socialist; that the British Labour Party is founded on socialist principles; and several countries in Western Europe have implemented – for years – serious socialist policies.

So, I honestly do not understand why persons do not appreciate that the modern socialist is an evolution of the communist man from the past and the current master of implementing capital market initiatives.

The modern socialist, moreover, functions within the world financial systems and, in some cases, also seeks to find alternatives like ALBA. He is not an enemy of the United States either. He may disagree with U.S. policies but he has learned a great deal from the United States and in many instances is jealous of the wealth generated in the United States and the quality of life enjoyed by some its citizens.

Being a socialist no longer means being anti-American or anti-European. It is just a conviction that the capitalist economy can be used to improve the wellbeing of the poor.

 

• Arley Gill is a magistrate and a former Grenada minister of culture.

November 14, 2014

thenassauguardian

The facts about homosexuality

BY CYNTHIA BURTON

Jamaica Observer - Columns:

I want to add my thoughts to the much-talked about topic of homosexuality, and clarify, once and for all the facts about this lifestyle.

Let me first state that this issue is not only confined to the perspective of the church, but to the wider society as well.  The first point that must be made clear is that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.

Homosexuals were not created.  Man was created as a being of free choice.  He was also created with an inherent sexuality, which is also governed by choice.  If we look at nature and how it is designed, even the animals and plants exist as male and female.  It was so ordained for procreation.  Each creature has to procreate in a union of male and female to ensure the survival of their species.

 

I have used the word "created" guardedly, as there are those among us who do not believe in the creation theory, but would ascribe to the evolutionist theory that says man evolved from animal life.  Whatever your persuasion, we have to agree that the natural order of things is male and female.

 

This homosexual lifestyle is wrong and abhorrent, and moves so far beyond the realm of the Christian church that if you should examine all other major religions, such as Islam and Hinduism, homosexuality is tabooed.  Additionally, if you should approach the biggest don in the inner city or the dancehall artistes, who have nothing to do with the church, they will give out against this lifestyle.

In fact, several of them have been banned from certain countries because of the stance taken against their music which hits out against this lifestyle.

 

This lifestyle, therefore, is a classic case of doing and believing the thing that is wrong for such a long time that it now seems right.

 

Times have really changed as far as the acceptance of this lifestyle is concerned.

 

I remember as a child growing up that homosexuality had to be kept behind closed doors, and those who practised this way of life had to do so in their closets under circumstances of great privacy.

 

Now look at how our world has changed.  We not only now accept this as a way of life, but we are seeking further to endorse it, by allowing those who practise homosexuality to demand the same rights as heterosexuals.  We have now got to the point where we have put legislation in place to protect the rights of these persons, them the message that they have the right to this choice of lifestyle and can therefore make such demands.

 

Now let us look at the whole thing from the church's perspective.

 

What is the church?  The church in the bible is spoken about as the bride.  It is God's institution and the voice of God for man.

 

If we go back to the book of Genesis, at the time of creation in Genesis 1 vs 21:

 

"And God created great whales, and every living creature and every living creature that moveth which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind and every winged fowl after his kind and God saw that it was good."

 

Genesis 1 vs 27 and 28:

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.

 

(28) "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

 

Now for those who say that the Bible does not speak out against homosexuality, and that Jesus himself did not address this issue, let us move over to Romans 1 vs 24 - 27.

 

(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves,

 

(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie.

 

(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

 

(27)And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of a woman, burned in their lust one toward another men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error...

 

Now we see the implications of societal acceptance of homosexuality, that people who practise this lifestyle have taken this matter to a different level, where they are now heading up the church and purporting to lead God's flock. It is the tolerance of this lifestyle that has now resulted in these persons now demanding rights of those things that are rightly the purview of heterosexuals.

 

Let us go even further with this dilemma.  Now homosexuals are demanding the right of marriage and the right to adopt children.  Gay marriages are very popular in modern society.

 

Can you imagine a scenario where a gay couple adopts a child and takes on the responsibility of raising this child in a primarily homophobic society?  The child goes to school and the school hosts a PTA meeting.  These two parents, male for argument's sake, turn up at the PTA meeting.  Who is Mom and who is Dad?  Can you imagine this poor child the next day at school with the other children?

 

Let us be quite clear -- marriage was an institution ordained by God between a man and a woman who are expected to procreate and create the unit called the family.  So important is this institution that Jesus performed his first miracle at the wedding in Canaan of Galilee.

 

Now to the big question.  Is homosexuality a sin?  Let us look at the definition of sin.  Sin is transgression of God's law.  So those who argue that all sin is sin, may want to think again.  Homosexuality is not provided for in the 10 commandments, because it is considered an abomination to God, and those who practice this lifestyle are flying in God's face and going against the order of things as God intended.

 

Now there are those who will argue that God created homosexuals.  Let us be clear that God created all persons including the homosexual, but our sexuality and our sexual preference is as a result of the free choice with which we were all created.  Some of us choose heterosexuality, some homosexuality and some abstinence.  How could God create something that he abhors?

 

We can now see the dilemma that we have created as a society.  The wrong has now become the right, and we are now creating laws on our books to not only allow the homosexual his constitutional rights, and to fulfil his everyday needs as stated in Maslows' hierarchy of needs, the right of food, shelter, the right to earn a living, but by extension are protecting rights that God ordained to be enjoyed between a man and a woman.

 

Additionally, while acknowledging these rights, we also have to be cognisant to the fact that certain professions, such as teaching, are not compatible with this lifestyle, because of the risk of perpetrating and influencing the spread of this lifestyle amongst the youth.

 

Finally, let us give the homosexual the benefit of the doubt and say for a minute that homosexuality is accepted and should enjoy all these rights.

 

Can we take it to the extreme and ask the question.  What if all persons should adopt this lifestyle?  Can you imagine that the human race would become extinct, as the only thing that the homosexuals could not do is to procreate.

 

Finally, as a society, what legacy are we leaving for our children?  Already as we move from generation to generation, we find our youth becoming more tolerant of this lifestyle and are being taught in schools that it is all right to pursue this lifestyle.

 

What of our moral values as a society?  What will the decision makers of tomorrow embrace when they now become the leaders and legislators of tomorrow.

 

We therefore have to conclude that this lifestyle is unacceptable, abominable, and a clear message should be sent forthwith to all who choose to practise same, that they have the right to their sexuality, and all the other constitutional rights, based on their ability to contribute to society, but should not try to enforce this right to the point where we legislate for this lifestyle, thus threatening the whole moral fabric of society.

 

Let us therefore unite in a message of love to our homosexuals, that we love them as persons, but abhor their lifestyle.  Additionally, this lifestyle is not permanent, and can be subject to change as evidenced by reformed homosexuals.

 

If we examine the facts, we see that environmental factors such as economic circumstances, rather than genetic predisposition, have influenced homosexuality, and therefore organisations such as J-FLAG should actively try to secure a transformation of this lifestyle, rather than serve as a voice in society for its acceptance.

 

cynthiacburton@hotmail.com

February 09, 2013

Jamaica Observer