(1) Idealism which dominated the paradigm.
Ideas do not transform societies. People
do not switch from old (bad) ideas just because they are presented with new
(good) ideas. Moreover, even if the idea is valid/correct does not guarantee
its implementation. It is the
transformation of socio-economic and production relations which guarantee the elimination of poverty. The majority of
the people are not motivated
by elegant systems of
rational ideas. They are urged on
by their perception of what is
in their interest and
the interest of
what is dear
to them. the forces
that defend the
status quo have at their disposal formidable media
to give their point of view and to
reinterpret events in a way that
supports backward consciousness. The
dissemination of ideas
cannot be general if they are to
transform consciousness.
Firstly, they must be
directed at the most receptive target
group. Secondly, they
must be brought to the people at
the point of experience and by
persons who come to be seen
as working on the side
of the people.
The nature of disengagement from imperialism and the extent to which the Caribbean could be self-reliant was inadequately understood.
(2) Un-Grounding with my brothers
The radicals tended
to disseminate their ideas generally and if they targeted
any group it was the intelligentsia, despite Beckford's view
that the intelligentsia had the
"most colonized minds." Is this rift what led to the break down of the New World Group? For more read Robert Hill's "From New Word to Abeng: George Beckford and the Horn of Black Power in Jamaica, 1968-1970"
They did not
work sufficiently to build the
link between their
ideas and a social movement of
those classes and groups who would
be best able to accept and
advance them in the
way in which they were conceived.
(3) Interest defined as power ignored
Their programme was devoid of
careful analysis of, firstly, which types of ruling alliances could adopt a policy of nationalization and, secondly, whose interest
would be served by such policies. E.g. Burnham's nationalization of
bauxite where the
nature of the
alliance in power meant that a
policy on nationalization did
not necessarily benefit the
nation as a
whole nor the poor in particular.
Their programme underestimated the difficulty of the
transformation process and the
extent to which
imperialism would react.
The need to
continue the struggle with
imperialism to maintain relations on
a more equitable basis even
while building up new relations
within the region and with
other Third World
and Socialist countries
was not grasped adequately.
[Notes taken from Bernal, R., Figueroa, M., & Witter, M. (1984). Caribbean Economic Thought: The CriticalTradition. Social and Economic Studies, 33(2), 5-96.]
No comments:
Post a Comment