Signifier and Signified explained

 

 

Two sources explaining "signifier and signified" among many on the WWW.

Semiotics for Beginners

Daniel Chandler

Excerpts

"Nowadays, whilst the basic 'Saussurean' model is commonly adopted, it tends to be a more materialistic model than that of Saussure himself. The signifier is now commonly interpreted as the material (or physical) form of the sign - it is something which can be seen, heard, touched, smelt or tasted. For Saussure, both the signifier and the signified were purely 'psychological' (Saussure 1983, 12, 14-15, 66; Saussure 1974, 12, 15, 65-66). Both were form rather than substance:

A linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern. The sound pattern is not actually a sound; for a sound is something physical. A sound pattern is the hearer's psychological impression of a sound, as given to him by the evidence of his senses. This sound pattern may be called a 'material' element only in that it is the representation of our sensory impressions. The sound pattern may thus be distinguished from the other element associated with it in a linguistic sign. This other element is generally of a more abstract kind: the concept. (Saussure 1983, 66; Saussure 1974, 66)

Saussure was focusing on the linguistic sign (such as a word) and he 'phonocentrically' privileged the spoken word, referring specifically to the image acoustique ('sound-image' or 'sound pattern'), seeing writing as a separate, secondary, dependent but comparable sign system (Saussure 1983, 15, 24-25, 117; Saussure 1974, 15, 16, 23-24, 119). Within the ('separate') system of written signs, a signifier such as the written letter 't' signified a sound in the primary sign system of language (and thus a written word would also signify a sound rather than a concept). Thus for Saussure, writing relates to speech as signifier to signified. Most subsequent theorists who have adopted Saussure's model are content to refer to the form of linguistic signs as either spoken or written. We will return later to the issue of the post-Saussurean 'rematerialization' of the sign.

As for the signified, most commentators who adopt Saussure's model still treat this as a mental construct, although they often note that it may nevertheless refer indirectly to things in the world. Saussure's original model of the sign 'brackets the referent': excluding reference to objects existing in the world. His signified is not to be identified directly with a referent but is a concept in the mind - not a thing but the notion of a thing. Some people may wonder why Saussure's model of the sign refers only to a concept and not to a thing. An observation from the philosopher Susanne Langer (who was not referring to Saussure's theories) may be useful here. Note that like most contemporary commentators, Langer uses the term 'symbol' to refer to the linguistic sign (a term which Saussure himself avoided): 'Symbols are not proxy for their objects but are vehicles for the conception of objects... In talking about things we have conceptions of them, not the things themselves; and it is the conceptions, not the things, that symbols directly mean. Behaviour towards conceptions is what words normally evoke; this is the typical process of thinking'. She adds that 'If I say "Napoleon", you do not bow to the conqueror of Europe as though I had introduced him, but merely think of him' (Langer 1951, 61)."

Click the image (René Magritte’s The Treachery of Images) for another explanation. 

Post for lazy teachers and bloggers on a rainy day

 

Discuss among yourselves.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave

There we go again! Allegory of the Cave but this time animated and explained by a man who looks a little like Robin Williams. 
It is now or never. Remember that the allegory is in "The Republic" and try reading the book.

Brazil's Youth See Their Future, And Her Name Is Ana Júlia

Brazil's Youth See Their Future, And Her Name Is Ana Júlia
by Shannon Sims in Forbes.
OCT 27, 2016 @ 12:53 PM
It has 42,908 VIEWS till now. I thank Shannon Sims to tell the world a little bit of what is happening in Brazil. As always with the help of US.

A girl bears a sticker in her mouth reading ‘Education on strike’ during a teachers protest demanding better working conditions and against police beating, on October 7, 2013 in Rio de Janeiro, one of the events that laid the road for Ana Julia’s speech yesterday. (YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP/Getty Images)

The news out of Brazil tends to be rough. Political turmoil. Corruption scandals. Arrests. Rapes. Deaths. Outrage. It can be exhausting to cover Brazil as a journalist; imagine how exhausting it must be to live Brazil as a Brazilian.

But today, good news, from an unlikely place. Over the past 24 hours, Brazil has become acquainted with what many Brazilians believe is the most promising voice it has heard in years. And remarkably, it is the voice of a 16-year-old girl named Ana Júlia Ribeiro.

In a video that has gone viral on Brazilian social media, Ana Júlia (Brazilian custom refers to people by their first name) addressed the legislative assembly of the state of Paraná yesterday.

Below, the video, which is in rapid-fire Portuguese. And below the video, an explanation in English of what is happening.

Ana Júlia’s Address

So what’s going on here? Ana Júlia is addressing the government leaders of the state of Paraná about the escalating crisis that has gripped many – over 1,000 – of the country’s schools. With a thick Paraná accent, she begins her speech with a question that has already been quoted repeatedly on Brazilian social media: “Who is school for?” She goes on to answer her rhetorical question by explaining why she believes the movement occupying schools – which is ideologically associated with the left-wing – is legal and legitimate.

She invites the politicians present to visit the occupied schools and says it is “an insult” that the students occupying the schools have been called “doctrinated,” which in Brazil carries the meaning of mindless dedication to a cause. With startling honesty, she admits that it is challenging for young students to be able to digest all of the politics and policies presented in the media and to then determine whether they will favor or counter them. “It is a difficult process, it is not easy for students to simply decide what to fight for. But still we’re lifting up our heads and confronting this.”

She proclaims, “Our flag is education, our only flag is education,” and argues that the controversial government program “escola sem partido” or “schools without political parties,” which forbids political discourse in the classroom, insults students by telling them that they don’t have the capacity to think for themselves. She adds, “Only, we do.”

Context

In the Brazilian state of Paraná, the educational crisis is particularly acute. Presently, 850 schools are occupied across the small state. And the issue of education and protests in Paraná has a difficult history. It was in Curitiba, the capital of Paraná, that about a year ago public school teachers filled the streets in protest of changes to their pension plans. Their protest was met with violence from the state, and over 100 teachers were injured. Scenes of teachers being beaten by police sent shockwaves around the country and laid the groundwork for Ana Júlia’s address yesterday.

Now, another tragic scene echoes those protests. On Monday, a student named Lucas Mota, was killed inside one of the occupied schools in Paraná. He was found with knife wounds to his chest, reportedly caused by another student after an argument over drugs. On the one hand, his death reaffirmed the position of those opposing the occupy schools movement that the students involved are trouble-makers taking advantage of the state. At the same time, Mota’s death has added fuel to the occupy movement, which was previously a protest that fell more under the umbrella of a protest over government policies, but that increasingly has become, for its supporters, a protest about human rights. Or, more specifically, students’ rights. And now carrying that umbrella, with a shaking voice that belies a firm determination, is young Ana Júlia.

At the most dramatic moment in her address to the assembly, Ana Júlia brings up Mota’s death. “I was at Lucas’ wake yesterday, and I didn’t recognize any of your faces there,” she says to the wide-eyed politicians in the assembly. “You all represent the state, and so I invite you to look at your hands. Your hands are dirty with the blood of Lucas. Not just of Lucas but of all the adolescents and students that are victims of this.”

At this moment in her speech, the hall erupts in applause from those attending the session in the rafters, and shouts from the politicians on the floor. “My hands aren’t dirty!” one politician counters. The president of the assembly, Ademar Traiano, who represents a centrist-right party, interrupts the session at this point and threatens to close the session entirely. “You can’t attack parliamentarians here,” he says angrily to Ana Júlia, over the boos of the crowd. “Here no one has hands stained with blood,” he adds.

It is a powerplay that would make most of us cower – an esteemed politician shutting down a speaker’s claim – and it is in this moment that Ana Júlia’s star shines brightest. The young teenager doesn’t try to shout over the president of the session, she doesn’t disrespect him or engage in an argument. Instead, she steels herself and calmly issues the most scathing critique at all. “I apologize, but the Statute of the Child and Adolescent tells us that the responsibility for our adolescents ­– our students – lies with society, the family, and the state.” The word “state” lands like a mic drop in the session.

To be sure, Ana Júlia is taking a a political position. She is against Temer’s recent push to tighten up the education system by forbidding political discourse within the classroom and by freezing the system’s expenditures. As seen in the most recent municipal elections, many – and quite possibly most – Brazilians are likely to disagree with Ana Júlia.

But what makes Ana Júlia’s speech rare and share-worthy is that while she represents a political opinion that many do not agree with, the way she carries herself is so self-possessed and even-keeled that it has drawn the respect of even Brazilians who might disagree with her position. She doesn’t read from a script, but instead she bobs and weaves through laws and constitutional amendments like an established scholar giving a university lecture. The fact that she is only 16 is what turns her into an instant beacon of political promise for those who support her position.

And that’s why suddenly, across the Brazilian digital waves, there is a resounding chorus: “Ana Júlia me representa!,” or, “Ana Júlia represents me!”

The Political Moment

This moment in which Ana Júlia stars is a heavy one. The latest round of municipal elections was a rout for the leftists of Brazil. Cities that were once led by bike-riding progressives, as in the case of São Paulo, booted those politicians from office and voted in centrist-right leaders last month.

It was a sea change election that echoed what is going on at the federal level in Brazil, where the leftist Dilma Rousseff has been impeached from office, and the centrist-right Michel Temer has taken over, vowing to unravel many of the leftist policies that have steered the country over the past 13 years.

Temer – who is 76 years old and could be Ana Júlia’s grandfather – has made quick work of this promise. One of the key targets of his reform efforts has been Brazil’s education system. This week, a controversial Constitutional amendment, called the PEC 241, passed through lower house of Congress on Tuesday. The new amendment would put a ceiling on government funding for education and puts a 20-year freeze on educational expenditures.


The amendment’s advocates believe this type of belt-tightening is required in order to get the country’s stalled economy moving again and to protect that process from political tampering over the next two decades. Critics of the proposal believe that the 20-year freeze is draconian in its impact (one study shows it could pull $8 billion out of the education system per year) and point out that educational expenditures are being frozen at the same time that government salaries are being raised. Next week, the Brazilian Senate will begin debating the amendment.

In the Forbe's article there are pictures.

Speak English better than native speakers: no, it's not a joke

"If you can pronounce correctly every word in this poem, you will be speaking English better than 90% of the native English speakers in the world." From The Poke.

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it’s written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.
Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind,
Scene, Melpomene, mankind.
Billet does not rhyme with ballet,
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation’s OK
When you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.
Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.
Query does not rhyme with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little,
We say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Fe0ffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate;
Dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific.
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, panel, and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.
Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.
Pronunciation (think of Psyche!)
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won’t it make you lose your wits,
Writing groats and saying grits?
It’s a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.
Finally, which rhymes with enough,
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is to give up!!!

You’ve been reading “The Chaos” by Gerard Nolst Trenité, written nearly 100 years ago in 1922, designed to demonstrate the irregularity of English spelling and pronunciation.

Taking a break

I'm taking a break this month.
Taking break dancing lessons would be a good idea.
We have a lifetime and experience only some aspects of our capabilities. I wish that it was easier to play with as many things as we want.

A special place: Virtlantis where dissent is mandatory

This is another picture of the house I had at Second Life. At the fence I hanged pictures of people I admire: from left to right: Vanessa Redgrave as Julia; a graffiti of the poet Rimbaud; Italy's map (my grandma was Italian), and, the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

I love Vichen's graffiti that uses the leaves as the hair and you can watch it at this post.

I stopped going to Second Life because this Windows's version makes it impossible to use sound and talking to the friends I met - people from many countries - is the reason I go to this virtual place.
I have bonds with some people that are hard to explain for we have a connection that is not like a friendship in real life.
I'll try to make it come clear in another post.

A place I love to go is Virtlantis. We can practice English by talking about different topics that vary according to our mood - from our favorite dishes to "the meaning of life" which is the proposal when we feel out of topic: "Let's discuss the meaning of life." and the silence is broken with laughs.

There are numerous different activities in English and in other languages. I started teaching Portuguese and it was a great experience. I wanna do it again because it is very empowering and I never thought that someone would want to learn my language.

I tried learning Polish and Arab. It is so hard! I'm still learning English and French that are the two languages I've been studying since... ever for English and from high school for French. I lived in Paris for one years and, yes, they treat you well if you speak the language.
I rather dedicate my time trying to master these two languages I have the privilege of speaking.

It all for free. You don't have to pay for these activities at Virtlantis or at other language practicing community.

What I like about Virtlantis is the freedom of speech. Yes, a place we can dissent, better, a place where dissent is incentivated, as a matter of fact dissent is mandatory.
Of course you can tell the official version but usually you'll receive information from people who have connections with the independents who are trying hard to tell what is really going on.

Rambling is also encouraged as long as you leave time for the others. I abused my ramblings prerogatives a lot... Shame!

"Yes! I love Van Gogh but I think that people put too much emphasys on his biography in a way that it overshadows his work... and the movie that is seen by... so I read a book about him and a psychoanalyst said that the pattern of the wall paper indicated he was emotionally unstable.  This is crazy!... and since we are talking about Van Gogh who was born in The Netherlands and spent a brief period of time in Paris... France? Oh! Sarkozy was a disaster and...'

My problem is that I think aloud. I start making connections and... I have to thank those great people who were patience with me.

Drowsy driving is not detected by any test

Be alert! There is no campaign but will we need the government after us to "take care" of our security?

There is already too much interference by the feds and police.
We know how to behave. Let them take care of the money they are making at the expense of people's sufrance.

Hugo Chávez legacy: ‘You don’t fight terrorism with state terrorism’

It is not a surprise that the mainstream media portrays those who condemn the crimes against humanity committed by US and allies as monsters, psychopaths  and, the irony, as dictators and other evil characteristics.

Colonel Gaddafi was killed in the most criminal way and the secretary of state Hillary Clinton was in all channels smiling: "We came, we saw, he died." If this is the behavior of a politician after the destruction of a country, the slaughter of 60.000 innocent civilians, promotion of torture, rape and other barbarians and criminal methods to take control of natural resources and put an end to the danger of unity among states contrary to Washington a change in the definition of "politics" is urgent.

All the articles about Hugo Chávez at the mainstrain media are moral executions full of lies.

Globalresearch published today this article by James Petras that explains the real legacy of Hugo Chávez.
I did copy the whole article because this is a must-read.

President Hugo Chavez: A 21st Century Renaissance Man

By Prof. James Petras
Global Research, March 15, 2013


Introduction
President Hugo Chavez was unique in multiple areas of political, social and economic life. He made significant contributions to the advancement of humanity. The depth, scope and popularity of his accomplishments mark President Chavez as the ‘Renaissance President of the 21st Century’.

Many writers have noted one or another of his historic contributions highlighting his anti-poverty legislation, his success in winning popular elections with resounding majorities and his promotion of universal free public education and health coverage for all Venezuelans.

In this essay we will highlight the unique world-historic contributions that President Chavez made in the spheres of political economy, ethics and international law and in redefining relations between political leaders and citizens.  We shall start with his enduring contribution to the development of civic culture in Venezuela and beyond.

Hugo Chavez:  The Great Teacher of Civic Values

From his first days in office, Chavez was engaged in transforming the constitutional order so that political leaders and institutions would be more responsive to the popular electorate.  Through his speeches Chavez clearly and carefully informed the electorate of the measures and legislation to improve their livelihood.  He invited comments and criticism – his style was to engage in constant dialogue, especially with the poor, the unemployed and the workers.  Chavez was so successful in teaching civic responsibilities to the Venezuelan electorate that millions of citizens from the slums of Caracas rose up spontaneously to oust the US backed business-military junta which had kidnapped their president and closed the legislature.  Within seventy-two hours – record time – the civic-minded citizens restored the democratic order and the rule of law in Venezuela , thoroughly rejecting the mass media’s defense of the coup-plotters and their brief authoritarian regime.

Chavez, as all great educators, learned from this democratic intervention of the mass of citizens, that democracy’s most effective defenders were to be found among the working people – and that its worst enemies were found in the business elites and military officials linked to Miami and Washington.

Chavez civic pedagogy emphasized the importance of the historical teachings and examples of founding fathers, like Simon Bolivar, in establishing a national and Latin American identity.  His speeches raised the cultural level of millions of Venezuelans who had been raised in the alienating and servile culture of imperial Washington and the consumerist obsessions of Miami shopping malls.

Chavez succeeded in instilling a culture of solidarity and mutual support among the exploited, emphasizing ‘horizontal’ ties over vertical clientelistic dependency on the rich and powerful.  His success in creating collective consciousness decisively shifted the balance of political power away from the wealthy rulers and corrupt political party and trade union leaders toward new socialist movements and class oriented trade unions.    More than anything else Chavez’ political education of the popular majority regarding their social rights to free health care and higher education, living wages and full employment drew the hysterical ire of the wealthy Venezuelans and their undying hatred of a president who had created a sense of autonomy, dignity and ‘class empowerment’ through public education ending centuries of elite privilege and omnipotence.

Above all Chavez speeches, drawing as much from Bolivar as from Karl Marx, created a deep, generous sense of patriotism and nationalism  and a profound rejection of a  prostrate elite groveling before their Washington overlord, Wall Street bankers and oil company executives.  Chavez’ anti-imperial speeches resonated because he spoke in the language of the people and expanded their national consciousness to identification with Latin America, especially Cuba ’s fight against imperial interventions and wars.

International Relations:  The Chavez Doctrine

At the beginning of the previous decade, after 9/11/01, Washington declared a ‘War on Terror’.  This was a public declaration of unilateral military intervention and wars against sovereign nations, movements and individuals deemed as adversaries, in violation of international law.

Almost all countries submitted to this flagrant violation of the Geneva Accords, except President Chavez, who made the most profound and simple refutation against Washington:  ‘You don’t fight terrorism with state terrorism’.  In his defense of the sovereignty of nations and international jurisprudence, Chavez underlined the importance of political and economic solutions to social problems and conflicts – repudiating the use of bombs, torture and mayhem. The Chavez Doctrine emphasized south-south trade and investments and diplomatic over military resolution of disputes.  He upheld the Geneva Accords against colonial and imperial aggression while rejecting the imperial doctrine of ‘the war on terror’, defining western state terrorism as a pernicious equivalent to Al Qaeda terrorism.

Political Theory and Practice:  The Grand Synthesizer

One of the most profound and influential aspects of Chavez’ legacy is his original synthesis of three grand strands of political thought:  popular Christianity, Bolivarian nationalist and regional integration and Marxist political, social and economic thought.  Chavez’ Christianity informed his deep belief in justice and the equality of people, as well as his generosity and forgiveness of adversaries even as they engaged in a violent coup, a crippling lockout, or openly collaborated and received financing from enemy intelligence agencies.  Whereas anywhere else in the world, armed assaults against the state and coup d’états would result in long prison sentences or even executions, under Chavez most of his violent adversaries escaped prosecution and even rejoined their subversive organizations.  Chavez demonstrated a deep belief in redemption and forgiveness.  Chavez’s Christianity informed his ‘option for the poor’, the depth and breadth of his commitment to eradicating poverty and his solidarity with the poor against the rich.

Chavez deep-seated aversion and effective opposition to US and European imperialism and brutal Israeli colonialism were profoundly rooted in his reading of the writings and history of Simon Bolivar, the founding father of the Venezuelan nation.  Bolivarian ideas on national liberation long preceded any exposure to Marx, Lenin or more contemporary leftist writings on imperialism.  His powerful and unwavering support for regional integration and internationalism was deeply influenced by Simon Bolivar’s proposed ‘United States of Latin America’ and his internationalist activity in support of anti-colonial movements.

Chavez’ incorporation of Marxist ideas into his world view was adapted to his longstanding popular Christian and Bolivarian internationalist philosophy.  Chavez’ option for the poor was deepened by his recognition of the centrality of the class struggle and the reconstruction of the Bolivarian nation through the socialization of the ‘commanding heights of the economy’.  The socialist conception of self-managed factories and popular empowerment via community councils was given moral legitimacy by Chavez’ Christian faith in an egalitarian moral order.

While Chavez was respectful and carefully listened to the views of visiting leftist academics and frequently praised their writings, many failed to recognize or, worse, deliberately ignored the President’s own more original synthesis of history, religion and Marxism.  Unfortunately, as is frequently the case, some leftist academics have, in their self-indulgent posturing, presumed to be Chavez’ ‘teacher’ and advisor on all matters of ‘Marxist theory’:  This represents a style of leftist cultural colonialism, which snidely criticized Chavez for not following their ready-made prescriptions, published in their political literary journals in London, New York and Paris.

Fortunately, Chavez took what was useful from the overseas academics and NGO-funded political strategists while discarding ideas that failed to take account of the  cultural-historical, class and rentier specificities of Venezuela .

Chavez has bequeathed to the intellectuals and activists of the world a method of thinking which is global and specific, historical and theoretical, material and ethical and which encompasses class analysis, democracy and a spiritual transcendence resonating with the great mass of humanity in a language every person can understand.  Chavez’ philosophy and practice (more than any ‘discourse’ narrated by the social forum-hopping experts) demonstrated that the art of formulating complex ideas in simple language can move millions of people to ‘make history, and not only to study it’..

Toward Practical Alternatives to Neoliberalism and Imperialism

Perhaps Chavez greatest contribution in the contemporary period was to demonstrate, through practical measures and political initiatives, that many of the most challenging contemporary political and economic problems can be successfully resolved.

Radical Reform of a Rentier State

Nothing is more difficult than changing the social structure, institutions and attitudes of a rentier petro-state, with deeply entrenched clientelistic politics, endemic party-state corruption and a deeply-rooted mass psychology based on consumerism.  Yet Chavez largely succeeded where other petro-regimes failed.  The Chavez Administration first began with constitutional and institutional changes to create a new political framework; then he implemented social impact programs, which deepened political commitments among an active majority, which, in turn, bravely defended the regime from a violent US backed business-military coup d’état.  Mass mobilization and popular support, in turn, radicalized the Chavez government and made way for a deeper socialization of the economy and the implementation of radical agrarian reform.  The petrol industry was socialized; royalty and tax payments were raised to provide funds for massively expanded social expenditures benefiting the majority of Venezuelans.

Almost every day Chavez prepared clearly understandable educational speeches on social, ethical and political topics related to his regime’s redistributive policies by emphasizing social solidarity over individualistic acquisitive consumerism.  Mass organizations and community and trade union movements flourished – a new social consciousness emerged ready and willing to advance social change and confront the wealthy and powerful.  Chavez’ defeat of the US-backed coup and bosses’ lockout and his affirmation of the Bolivarian tradition and sovereign identity of Venezuela created a powerful nationalist consciousness which eroded the rentier mentality and strengthened the pursuit of a diversified ‘balanced economy’.  This new political will and national productive consciousness was a great leap forward, even as the main features of a rentier-oil dependent economy persist.  This extremely difficult transition has begun and is an ongoing process.  Overseas leftist theorists, who criticize Venezuela (‘corruption’, ‘bureaucracy’) have profoundly ignored the enormous difficulties of transitioning from a rentier state to a socialized economy and the enormous progress achieved by Chavez.

Economic Crisis Without Capitalist Austerity

Throughout the crisis-wracked capitalist world, ruling labor, social democratic, liberal and conservative regimes have imposed regressive ‘austerity programs’ involving brutal reductions of social welfare, health and education expenditures and mass layoffs of workers and employees while handing our generous state subsidies and bailouts to failing banks and capitalist enterprises.  Chanting their Thacherite slogan, ‘there is no alternative’, capitalist economists justify imposing the burden of ‘capitalist recovery’ onto the working class while allowing capital to recover its profits in order to invest.

Chavez’ policy was the direct opposite: In the midst of crisis, he retained all the social programs, rejected mass firings and increased social spending.  The Venezuelan economy rode out of the worldwide crisis and recovered with a healthy 5.8% growth rate in 2012.    In other words, Chavez demonstrated that mass impoverishment was a product of the specific capitalist ‘formula’ for recovery.  He showed another, positive alternative approach to economic crisis, which taxed the rich, promoted public investments and maintained social expenditures.

Social Transformation in a ‘Globalized Economy’

Many commentators, left, right and center, have argued that the advent of a ‘globalized economy’ ruled out a radical social transformation.  Yet Venezuela , which is profoundly globalized and integrated into the world market via trade and investments, has made major advances in social reform.  What really matters in relation to a globalized economy is the nature of the political economic regime and its policies, which dictate how the gains and costs of international trade and investment are distributed.  In a word, what is decisive is the ‘class character of the regime’ managing its place in the world economy.  Chavez certainly did not ‘de-link’ from the world economy; rather he has re-linked Venezuela in a new way.  He shifted Venezuelan trade and investment toward Latin America, Asia and the Middle East – especially to countries which do not intervene or impose reactionary conditions on economic transactions.

Anti-Imperialism in a Time of an Imperialist Offensive

In a time of a virulent US—EU imperialist offensive involving ‘pre-emptive’ military invasions, mercenary interventions, torture, assassinations and drone warfare in Iraq, Mali, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan and brutal economic sanctions and sabotage against Iran; Israeli colonial expulsions of thousands of Palestinians financed by the US; US-backed military coups in Honduras and Paraguay and aborted revolutions via puppets in Egypt and Tunisia, President Chavez, alone, stood as the principled defender of anti-imperialist politics.  Chavez deep commitment to anti-imperialism stands in marked contrast to the capitulation of Western self-styled ‘Marxist’ intellectuals who mouthed crude justifications for their support of NATO bombing Yugoslavia and Libya, the French invasion of  Mali and the Saudi-French (‘Monarcho-Socialist’) funding and arming of Islamist mercenaries against Syria.  These same London, New York and Paris-based ‘intellectuals’ who patronized Chavez as a mere ‘populist’ or ‘nationalist’ and claimed he should have listened to their lectures and read their books, had crassly capitulated under the pressure of the capitalist state and mass media into supporting ‘humanitarian interventions’ (aka NATO bombing)… and justified their opportunism in the language of obscure leftists sects.  Chavez confronted NATO pressures and threats, as well as the destabilizing subversion of his domestic opponents and courageously articulated the most profound and significant principles of 20th and 21st Marxism:  the inviolate right to self-determination of oppressed nations and unconditional opposition to imperial wars. While Chavez spoke and acted in defense of anti-imperialist principles, many in the European and US left acquiesced in imperial wars:  There were virtually no mass protests, the ‘anti-war’ movements were co-opted or moribund, the British ‘Socialist’ Workers Party defended the massive NATO bombing of Libya, the French ‘Socialists’ invaded Mali- with the support of the ‘Anti-Capitalist’ Party.  Meanwhile, the ‘populist’ Chavez had articulated a far more profound and principled understanding of Marxist practice, certainly than his self-appointed overseas Marxist ‘tutors’.

No other political leader or for that matter, leftist academic, developed, deepened and extended the central tenets of anti-imperialist politics in the era of global imperialist warfare with greater acuity than Hugo Chavez.

Transition from a Failed Neo-Liberal to a Dynamic Welfare State

Chavez’ programmatic and comprehensive reconfiguration of Venezuela from a disastrous and failed neo-liberal regime to a dynamic welfare state stands as a landmark in 20th and 21st century political economy.  Chavez’ successful reversal of neo-liberal institutions and policies, as well as his re-nationalization of the ‘commanding heights of the economy’ demolished the reigning neo-liberal dogma derived from the Thatcher-Reagan era enshrined in the slogan: ‘There is no alternative’ to brutal neo-liberal policies, or TINA.

Chavez rejected privatization – he re-nationalized key oil related industries, socialized hundreds of capitalist firms and carried out a vast agrarian reform program, including land distribution to 300,000 families.  He encouraged trade union organizations and worker control of factories – even bucking public managers and even his own cabinet ministers.  In Latin America , Chavez led the way in defining with greater depth and with more comprehensive social changes, the post neo-liberal era.  Chavez envisioned the transition from neo-liberalism to a new socialized welfare state as an international process and provided financing and political support for new regional organizations like ALBA, PetroCaribe, and UNASUR.  He rejected the idea of building a welfare state in one country and formulated a theory of post-neo-liberal transitions based on international solidarity.  Chavez’ original ideas and policies regarding the post-neo-liberal transition escaped the armchair Marxists and the globetrotting Social Forum NGO pundits whose inconsequential ‘global alternatives’ succeeded primarily in securing  imperial foundation funding.

Chavez demonstrated through theory and practice that neo-liberalism was indeed reversible – a major political breakthrough of the 21st century.

Beyond Social Liberalism:  The Radical Definition of Post-Neo-Liberalism

The US-EU promoted neo-liberal regimes have collapsed under the weight of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Massive unemployment led to popular uprisings, new elections and the advent of center-left regimes in most of Latin America , which rejected or at least claimed to repudiate ‘neo-liberalism’.  Most of these regimes promulgated legislation and executive directives to fund poverty programs, implement financial controls and make productive investments, while raising minimum wages and stimulating employment.  However few lucrative enterprises were actually re-nationalized.  Addressing inequalities and the concentration of wealth were not part of their agenda.  They formulated their strategy of working with Wall Street investors, local agro-mineral exporters and co-opted trade unions.

Chavez posed a profoundly different alternative to this form of ‘post-neoliberalism’.  He nationalized resource industries, excluded Wall Street speculators and limited the role of the agro-mineral elites.  He posed a socialized welfare state as an alternative to the reigning social-liberal orthodoxy of the center-left regimes, even as he worked with these regimes in promoting Latin American integration and opposing US backed coups.

Chavez was both a leader defining a more socialized alternative to social liberation and the conscience pressuring his allies to advance further.

Socialism and Democracy

Chavez opened a new and extraordinarily original and complex path to socialism based on free elections, re-educating the military to uphold democratic and constitutional principals, and the development of mass and community media.  He ended the capitalist mass media monopolies and strengthened civil society as a counter-weight to US-sponsored para-military and fifth column elites intent on destabilizing the democratic state.

No other democratic-socialist president had successfully resisted imperial destabilization campaigns – neither Jagan in Guyana , Manley in Jamaica , nor Allende in Chile .  From the very outset Chavez saw the importance of creating a solid legal-political framework to facilitate executive leadership, promote popular civil society organizations and end US penetration of the state apparatus (military and police).  Chavez implemented radical social impact programs that ensured the loyalty and active allegiance of popular majorities and weakened the economic levers of political power long held by the capitalist class.  As a result Venezuela ’s political leaders, soldiers and officers loyal to its constitution and the popular masses crushed a bloody rightwing coup, a crippling bosses’ lockout and a US-financed referendum and proceeded to implement further radical socio-economic reforms in a prolonged process of cumulative socialization.

Chavez’s originality, in part the result of trial and error, was his ‘experimental method’: His profound understanding and response to popular attitudes and behavior was deeply rooted in Venezuela ’s history of racial and class in justice and popular rebelliousness.  More than any previous socialist leader, Chavez traveled, spoke and listened to Venezuela ’s popular classes on questions of everyday life.  His ‘method’ was to translate micro based knowledge into macro programed changes.  In practice he was the anti-thesis of the overseas and local intellectual know-it-alls who literally spoke down to the people and who saw themselves as the ‘masters of the world’ …at least, in the micro-world of left academia, ingrown socialist conferences and self-centered monologues.  The death of Hugo Chavez was profoundly mourned by millions in Venezuela and hundreds of million around the world because his transition to socialism was their path; he listened to their demands and he acted upon them effectively.

Social Democracy and National Security

Chavez was a socialist president for over 13 years in the face of large-scale, long-term violent opposition and financial sabotage from Washington , the local economic elite and mass media moguls.  Chavez created the political consciousness that motivated millions of workers and secured the constitutional loyalty of the military to defeat a bloody US-backed business-military coup in 2002.  Chavez tempered social changes in accordance with a realistic assessment of what the political and legal order could support.  First and foremost, Chavez secured the loyalty of the military by ending US ‘advisory’ missions and overseas imperial indoctrination while substituting intensive courses on Venezuelan history, civic responsibility and the critical link between the popular classes and the military in a common national mission..

Chavez’ national security policies were based on democratic principles as well as a clear recognition of the serious threats to Venezuelan sovereignty.  He successfully safeguarded both national security and the democratic rights and political freedoms of its citizens, a feat which has earned Venezuela the admiration and envy of constitutional lawyers and citizens of the US and the EU.

In stark contrast, US President Obama has assumed the power to assassinate US citizens based on secret information and without trial both in and out of the US .  His Administration has murdered ‘targeted’ US citizens and their children, jailed others without trial and maintains secret ‘files’ on over 40 million Americans.  Chavez never assumed those powers and never assassinated or tortured a single Venezuelan.  In Venezuela , the dozen or so prisoners convicted of violent acts of subversion after open trials in Venezuelan courts, stand in sharp contrast to the tens of thousands of jailed and secretly framed Muslims and Latin American immigrants in the US .  Chavez rejected state terror; while Obama has special assassination teams on the ground in over 70 countries.  Obama supports arbitrary police invasions of ‘suspect’ homes and workplaces based on ‘secret evidence’ while.  Chavez even tolerated the activities of known foreign (CIA)-funded opposition parties.  In a word, Obama uses ‘national security’ to destroy democratic freedoms while Chavez upheld democratic freedoms and imposed constitutional limits on the national security apparatus.

Chavez sought peaceful diplomatic resolution of conflicts with hostile neighbors, such as Colombia which hosts seven US military bases – potential springboards for US intervention.  On the other hand, Obama has engaged in open war with at least seven countries and has been pursuing covert hostile action against dozens of others.

Conclusion

Chavez’s legacy is multi-faceted.  His contributions are original, theoretical and practical and universally relevant.  He demonstrated in ‘theory and practice’ how a small country can defend itself against imperialism, maintain democratic principles and implement advanced social programs.  His pursuit of regional integration and promotion of ethical standards in the governance of a nation – provide examples profoundly relevant in a capitalist world awash in corrupt politicians slashing living standards while enriching the plutocrats.

Chavez’ rejection of the Bush-Obama doctrine of using ‘state terror to fight terror’, his affirmation that the roots of violence are social in justice , economic pillage and political oppression and his belief that resolving these underlying issues is the road to peace, stands as the ethical-political guide for humanity’s survival.

Faced with a violent world of imperial counter-revolution, and resolved to stand with the oppressed of the world, Hugo Chavez enters world history as a complete political leader, with the stature of the most humane and multi-faceted leader of our epoch:  the Renaissance figure for the 21st century.

Articles of interest::

'Why is Hugo Chavez called a Dictator?'
by John E.Jones , January 31st 2011


'Sean Penn: Journalists who call Hugo Chávez a dictator should be jailed'
by Rory Carroll 11 March 2010

Language and Culture trivia

Quiz Show - Language Trivia from Andrew Jeppesen

Trivia questions related to the language and culture of France, Germany and Japan

I hope you have fun. Remember it is "trivia" but who knows when one has to know Kazakhstan capital for instance?
You're walking and someone appears with a mic and pop the question saying the correct answer
will have one million dollars.
Who knows? Stop being pessimist.

I liked "SlideShare". I'm doing something to share.

High school students are learning dangerous versions of history

How High School History Books Lie About 9/11, PATRIOT Act, and the Iraq War
Julian Sanchez,

November 24, 2012

"Some time ago, I got curious about what the high school kids are reading these days in history class. A quick consultation with a few teacher friends led me to The American Vision by Professors Joyce Appleby, Alan Brinkley, Albert Broussard, James McPhereson, and Donald Ritchie. It’s one of the most popular American history textbooks aimed at eleventh grade students. As I understand it, the 2003 copy I hold in my hands would’ve been used in a typical classroom for five to eight years. In other words, this is the American history book that shaped a lot of the young people who’ve recently joined the ranks of adult society, or at least eligible voters.

How have they been taught our shared past?

As I flipped through the table of contents, pondering where to begin, I suddenly felt foolish, for I hadn’t anticipated that the last chapter would be titled, “The War on Terrorism.” Do you mean to tell me that history didn’t end when I last studied it — that today’s history textbooks include stuff that happened years after I graduated from high school? Intent on feeling wiser if I was doomed to feel older, I decided to start there. How better to begin assessing a tome of history than by reading how its authors describe the major national events that I witnessed as an adult?

Here is the first paragraph that I read:

"The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, killed all 266 passengers and crewmembers on the four hijacked planes. Another 125 people died in the Pentagon. In New York City, nearly 3,000 people died. More Americans were killed in the attacks than died at Pearl Harbor or on D-Day in World War II."

That’s a confusing way to compare the events for any student whose touchstone is Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. It makes it seem as though 9/11 cost more lives than the invasion of Normandy. It’s true that an estimated 2,499 Americans died on June 6, 1944 itself, a slightly lesser figure than the victims who died on September 11, 2001. But add up all Allied deaths on D-Day and the figure reaches 4,414 killed... (keep reading)

Susan Sontag' Against Interpretation: Plato' mimetic theory of art

In the essay "Against Interpretation" Susan Sontag exposes Plato's mimetic theory in one paragraph in a very  simple way:


"t is at this point that the peculiar question of the value of art arose. For the mimetic theory, by its very terms, challenges art to justify itself.

Plato, who proposed the theory, seems to have done so in order to rule that the value of art is dubious. Since he considered ordinary material things as themselves mimetic objects, imitations of transcendent forms or structures, even the best painting of a bed would be only an "imitation of an imitation." For Plato, art is neither particularly useful (the painting of a bed is no good to sleep on), nor, in the strict sense, true. And Aristotle's arguments in defense of art do not really challenge Plato's view that all art is an elaborate trompe l'oeil, and therefore a lie. But he does dispute Plato's idea that art
is useless. Lie or no, art has a certain value according to Aristotle because it is a form of therapy. Art is useful, after all, Aristotle counters, medicinally useful in that it arouses and purges dangerous emotions.

In Plato and Aristotle, the mimetic theory of art goes hand in hand with the assumption that art is always figurative. But advocates of the mimetic theory need not close their eyes to decorative and abstract art. The fallacy that art is necessarily a "realism" can be modified or scrapped without ever moving outside the problems delimited by the mimetic theory."

I hope it helps. Sontag's book "Against Interpretation"  highlight the intrinsic values of art that doesn't need other discourses to be explained.

Operation Himmler: Nazi's false flag project to legitimize the invasion of Poland

“Naturally the common people don’t want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” - Hermann Goering


Operation Himmler, a Nazi Germany SS project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which would be used to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland.

On the night of 31 August 1939 a small group of German operatives, dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Alfred Naujocks, seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German message in Polish (sources vary on the content on the message).

Several prisoners (most likely from the Dachau concentration camp) and a local Polish-Silesian activist (arrested a day before) were left dead on the scene in Polish uniforms.

Who was the first victim of a war that would do more than forty million of them? It was a prisoner of the Nazi concentration camps (probably Dachau) used in a German secret operation that would lead to the outbreak of World War II.

Some months before the invasion of Poland by Germany, several German newspapers and other politicians like Adolf Hitler had already begun a national and international campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of Germans living in Poland.

The August 22, 1939, Adolft Hitler warned his generals that he would get something that would legitimize an action war against Poland:

«I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth.»

Then they launched a plan that had the name of its creator Heinrich Himmler and was initially supervised by Heinrich Müller and then by Reinhard Heydrich. The aim was to create the idea of a Polish aggression against Germany, which would later be used to justify the invasion of Poland. In addition, another of the intentions of Adolf Hitler was that such an operation would confuse the Poland allies (United Kingdom and France) and delay their declaration of war on Germany.

Operation Himmler had several episodes: (keep reading)



Very interesting footage from Die Deutsche Wochenschau in 1939. Most aspects of World War II from the German point of view are covered. Most scenes are of genuine combat in the Soviet Union, Italy, the Atlantic and the Western Front. Rare footage of Waffen SS, Panzer troops and Panzer Grenadiers, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and the common German people are filmed in these extraordinary propaganda films.

Die Deutsche Wochenschau (The German Newsreel) was the sole series of German newsreels from 1940 until the end of World War II. It was usually narrated by Harry Giese (1903-1991)

My Neighbourhood: Palestinians and Israelis peacebuilders

"When a Palestinian boy loses half of his home to Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem, he joins his community in a campaign of nonviolent protests. Efforts to put a quick end to the demonstrations are foiled when scores of Israelis choose to stand by the residents' side."

Boy:      "They came at ten o'clock... with a lot, a lot of anger faces."

Setrler:  "...and the Bible says that this area and this country belongs to the Jewish people. All this area will be Jewish neighbourhood."

Boy:     " I hate them." (watch the video)

This is the work of Just Vision: "Increasing the power and legitimacy of Palestinians and Israelis working for nonviolent solutions to the conflict."

Visit the site and educate yourself. Get involved.

"Sing a Song of Sixpence": nursery rhymes for your children

Sing a song of sixpence,
A pocket full of rye.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a pie.

When the pie was opened,
The birds began to sing;
Wasn't that a dainty dish,
To set before the king?

The king was in his counting house,
Counting out his money;
The queen was in the parlour,
Eating bread and honey.

The maid was in the garden,
Hanging out the clothes;
When down came a blackbird
And pecked off her nose.

For more nursery rhymes click at the link below:

                     London Bridge  is falling down, 

I hope you have fun with your children. 

Name that thing! Things you might not know that have a name

There are some quizzes at the Merriam-Webster site that are very interesting. How do you name the part of the hammer used to take the spike out? There is a name for that.
Take the quizzes here: Name that thing; True or False and Vocabulary quiz are the three types of questions.
Enjoy!
Answer of the images above: Corinthian Column; Bugle; Tasmanian Devil and Cumulus Cloud.

21th Century Most Dangerous People: those who dare to mix

Mixing: The crime of the century.

"In 1845, Ralph Waldo Emerson, alluding to the development of European civilization out of the medieval Dark Ages, wrote in his private journal of America as the Utopian product of a culturally and racially mixed "smelting pot", but only in 1912 were his remarks first published. In his writing, Emerson explicitly welcomed the racial intermixing of whites and non-whites, a highly controversial view during his lifetime."

"In The Melting Pot (1905), Zangwill combined a romantic denouement with a utopian celebration of complete cultural intermixing. The play was an adaptation of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, set in New York City.

2012: Xenophobia and hate in the utmost degree. What a setback! We are going backwards.

MIX IT UP

Time to research...

I'm not publishing lately cause I'm researching some stuffs that I know by intuition.
But we need to search for the facts.
I'm constantly seeking for the truth and it requires a lot of time. But we have to do it or we'll dangerously believe that what we know is enough. It is never enough...
The image is beautiful but I did choose it because it's not in the comfort of the sun that enlightenment is achieved. It is in the rain.
And sometimes... Enlightenment can be brutal.

Which is English? "sick as a cat" / "sick as a dog"? "duopoly" / "biopoly"?

I found this game "Which is English" and it became  a  funny way to get in touch with some expressions.

Real words are mixed with fake words and expressions that are better learnt when we are among a culture where English is spoken.

Why do we say "wife and husband" instead of "husband and wife"?
I have no idea.

History lover

And if you don't know about the Library of Alexandria blame it on the educational system.