Anyone who discounts the greatness of Dr. Jagan is simply malicious.

He is the greatest.  He did not steal your votes for 28 years.

He was the savior.

Praising Stalin?  I do not believe it.  If anything Cheddi was a Trotsky symphatizer.  

Jay,

Keep ayuh Hindu nonsense to ayuhself.

You ever hear significant numbers of Blacks and other non-Hindus praise and worship Jagan like you Hindus and Hindu origin lot?

Never heard Jagan said anything about Stalin, and even if he did, what?

 

Are the bourgeois philosophers better?  Attacking socialist philosophers is simple western cool aid.  Marxist analysis is closer to the truth, not the bourgeois crap they feed you in college.

Interview with Cheddi Jagan

<cite>NACLA Report on the Americas</cite>, May/June 1997

Cheddi Jagan, the President of Guyana, died of a massive heart attack on March 5, 1997. A committed Marxist, he was one of the founders of the independent state of Guyana and a leader of the anticolonial struggle of the former British colony, British Guiana. He was elected three times to lead the Guyanese, and was twice overthrown, first by British colonial troops in 1953 and then by a U.S. and British-backed coup in 1964. He was elected again in 1992 and remained in office until his death this year. He was interviewed in his office in Georgetown just a month before he died by Fred Rosen and Mario Murillo via radio hookup from the studios of WBAI in New York.

Dr. Jagan, you've been referred to in the U.S. press as an unabashed Stalinist and a Moscow-inspired purist, and on the other hand you've been referred to as a former Marxist who has seen the light and is now a converted practitioner of freemarket economics. How would you describe your political and economic evolution over the past 30 years?

Well, I have always associated myself with the ideology of the working class, and I have led a very strong working class party for the past 47 years. Different people see and call working-class ideology by different names. But what was important were the concrete historical conditions in Guyana and the creation of a programmatic platform which caters to the needs of the working class. In many ways we were different from the mold in which many people placed us, especially the far right during the period of intense political and ideological struggles. Marxism for me neither was or is dogma, but a scientific guide to action. It gave me strong ethical beliefs in social justice, particularly in helping the poor, the underprivileged, and the exploited.

I grew up in a sugar plantation. Sugar was king. As a matter of fact, it was the gunning down of sugar workers in 1948 which propelled me into the anti-fascist struggle for national and social liberation, and in particular the anti-colonial struggle for an end to foreign domination. We struggled in British Guiana for the right to vote, and later to raise living standards and to try to transform the colonial economy where we were just producers of raw materials, sending things abroad and getting very little in return. Today I would say that it's fashionable to talk about the collapse of Marxism and socialism, yet it is not Marxism that has collapsed, but some of its practitioners. There is a great distinction between theory and principles on one hand, and practice on the other. Our practice developed differently in a concrete and different historical context than say in Russia, Cuba, or China.

And as we know, many mistakes were made due to the wholesale adoption in developing countries of the programmatic position taken in Britain by the British Labor Party. Many developing countries saw their advance to socialism in the rulebook of the British Labor Party, <q>the public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.</q> That was in a developed economy. But because many colonial peoples, especially in the British empire, looked at the British experience and had links to the social democratic movement of the Labor party in England, our practice was more or less taken from theirs. In this regard, I think we made mistakes. We were not creative enough in adopting programs which were in keeping with our own concrete condition. Our concept of Guyana Socialism was premised on plural, peaceful, multi-party states with mixed forms of ownership. This was misunderstood at the height of the cold war hysteria.

Given the state of inequality in the world today where there is a greater percentage of poor people than ever before, do you see some form of socialism still on the agenda in Guyana?

Well, I would say that socialism has suffered a setback with the collapse of the world's socialist systems. However, there are experiments going on in different parts of the world, in Cuba, in China, and the struggle is being waged now in Russia between those who still want some form of socialism, and those who want Russia to pursue a capitalist course. So that struggle is going to continue. I would say that the contradictions now are sharpening between Marxism and the neoliberal model which is currently being dictated by the West. This is not the most important struggle that we have going on now. The most important struggle is to seek a balance of interests in this period of globalization and liberalization on one hand, and the specific interests of the developing countries which will continue to be marginalized if we do not collectively seek a new global order. Let me just say that socialism is not on the agenda in Guyana. We can speak of a period of national democracy.

How has the clash between the neoliberal model and socialism had an impact on Guyana?

We have inherited IMF and World Bank programs that were implemented by the last government. In this regard we are trying to move very carefully because we need balance-of-payment support of $40-45 million a year from the World Bank, IMF and the developed countries. So we see that there are many contradictions in the model that is advocated by the World Bank and the IMF, contradictions that do not solve our problems.

At our Congress two years ago, we said that we had to walk carefully, skillfully, and scientifically between conformism and transformation. To go along completely with the IMF and World Bank is going to lead to the death of many countries, as we have seen. As a matter of fact, politicians who follow that model lose when it comes time for the people to vote, they are thrown out.

In this careful walk between this <q>Washington Consensus</q> and a genuine Latin American agenda, with which you identify, where do you fit in the idea of privatization and low wages to attract foreign investors? How do you feel about these things in Guyana?

Under the last governments, we have experienced privatization along with the devaluation of our currency. A lot of those deals have proven to be a failure. We are examining everything very carefully and not accepting it as the one and only model. We are now talking about privatization of the electric company. And we have said that we don't want a model where foreign companies will hold a majority of the shares, and therefore control of the management and the board.

How would you characterize ethnic relations in Guyana and how do they relate to the political parties and the general political process?

This has a long history in Guyana, before we entered politics in the 1940's. Long before Mr. Mandela came up with the formula of bringing the opposition in, we had made several attempts to bring about unity in our country. In 1957 we failed [to create a political coalition between East Indians and Afro-Guyanese]. In 1964 we won and I tried again. I went to the UN in support of Afro-Asian states to work out the formula, but then the foreign governments were working with [cuop-leader] Mr. Burnham to put him in power. As the opposition for 28 years, we again tried to bring about some unity but we failed. In 1977, we came out with a slogan and a policy formulation called <q>winner will not take all</q> even if we win the election. We alone will not form the government. So, it is still the policy to bring about unity along ethnic and religious lines in Guyana.

We have signed the optional protocol to the UN on several non-political rights.

The last government did not sign this protocol. We signed it, and now anyone is entitled to go to the UN with any discrimination case they may have. We also have a taskforce for racial equality, headed by a very distinguished bishop of the Anglican church. He is a respected individual and his task force has produced a White Paper which will be presented to Parliament very shortly. And might I say that the opposition party has refused to serve on the task force because they hate Bishop George because he has fought for fair and free elections in this country.

When that White Paper is debated in the Parliament, we hope to get a law on racial equality. Then we will have a commission on racial equality. We hope that then cases can be brought, not to the UN or some other international body like the OAS, but can be dealt with here, by the Commission.

People have always said the racial factor is the only political factor here. That is not true. If that were true, we would not have won a majority of the votes in Guyana, over 50%. Indians are just above 50% of the population, and not all of them vote for us. In the 1992 elections, there were many irregularities. In spite of that, we won 54% of the votes. Given the peace in the country, I am sure we will break that gap again, as we did in 1993. In fact, when I was sworn in in 1992, I said that we would make a new beginning, start where we had left off and bring about what we call <q>the spirit of 1953</q> which is about national unity, working class unity, and racial unity.

You have referred to Cold War hysteria in the United States and the developments that led to your ouster. How do you view the relationship between the United States and Guyana today?

Our relations are very good with the U.S. and we are working to achieve a partnership with the North and the South of the world, particularly with the U.S., Latin America, and the Caribbean. I have praised the U.S.; the past is the past. The Cold War was a historical process that was going on at that time, and we became the victims. I have no recriminations against the U.S. and Britain even though they have helped to destabilize my governement on two occasions.

Many have stated that the new method of U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean is the war on drugs, and many countries have approved the hot pursuit of narcotics traffickers on their territory. It has also been stated that if Guyana had been in opposition to that, there would be less of a threat to sovereignty. What's your reaction to that and the role that the United States is playing in the so-called<q>war on drugs?</q>

We haven't gone on completely, like some countries who have allowed American agencies to come into their territory. We have allowed them one thing only, and that is to allow them airline passage over our territory, but we have to be constantly informed when that is happening. We have taken the line all along in COMICON, and throughout the hemisphere, that we have to act together. In Bolivia, I stated that we must look at what is causing environmental destruction, underdevelopment and poverty. When I came to the emergency meeting held by COMICON about the narcotics question, and the U.S. way of dealing with it, we took the line that we must not only deal with the symptoms, which are narcotics trafficking, and narcotics production, we must also deal with development.

In my country we have two big regions: one in the northwest near Venezuela, and one in the south near Brazil. People living in these areas produced peanuts, quality peanuts. But we cannot compete against peanuts coming into the country. Right now the banana producers in the Caribbean, especially in the Windward and Leeward Islands, cannot compete on the open market, and they are getting a special price in Europe, and America and Chiquita is backing that price. A statement by the former Prime Minister of Dominica makes it clear that if the banana goes-and their income depends nearly 70% upon bananas-then the people will be force d to grow marijuana. In a letter to the World Bank president, I reiterated that statement. Not only will the people be forced to grow marijuana, but they will become refugees to the North. If they cannot get visas to go, they will go illegally. We have to therefore not just treat the symptom, but treat the root cause.

When I was in the government in the 1950's, there was no marijuana grown here.

But under the last government 60% of the land which was under rice cultivation was abandoned, and the people started growing marijuana. And if we cannot sell our peanuts from these two regions then what are the people to do?

Especially when there is a demand in the North for either marijuana, or cocaine, or heroin. Right? And therefore you have the people of Latin America growing coca leaves, producing coca plants, and the big drug lords transforming that into cocaine and sending it to the north. We have to get to the root problem of development, and overcoming poverty. That's my message.

Marxism is another economic analysis of society, just like Rostow's modernization model, the Latin American dependencia model or the autarchic model. There are truths to each one but we have to look at the historical evolution of society and see which one can help us understand the pieces of the puzzle. We should not become slave to a specific theory. Jagan totally ignored ethnic models that help us understand racially polarized society like those offered b y Lijphart and Horowitz.

 

The failure of Marxism is something Cheddi was not willing to accept. Lets not become blind loyalists to ideology. Our situation in Guyana is different and requires a different set of tools to make sense of it.    

Jay, Jagan was a Stalinist loyalist and blindly supported everything they did, including the invasions of Chech. and Hungary. Keep an open mind...Cheddi made mistakes, if we are to move forward, we need to be critical of his mistakes, which we accept his virtues. 

I attended many many public meetings where Jagan spoke and never heard him say anything complementary about Stalin.  Matter of fact, Moses Nagamootoo in a a recent speech in Guyana Parliament called the current crop of PPP Stalinist.  He would have never said that if Jagan was a Stalinist.    

This interview confirms what we have been saying about Cheddi and his weakness (and strengths). He was a slave to an ideology to which Indians (and most Guyanese for this matter) did not support. As I said before we should acknowledge his contributions, but also recognize his weaknesses. A new generation of leaders must understand this so we can avoid making similar mistakes. 

How do you explain the rise of the East Indian middle class, and the many educated East Indians. Give one thing that jagan did to keep the East Indians on the plantations or the rice farmers on their rice fields. Why is it that many Eadt Indians became the envy of other groups. Please read Professor Kazim Bacchus book on Education in Guyana and this will explain the rise of East Indians in the field of education and as a jumping off point for other activities. 

Haul yuh Lying Dutty Jihaji

Goatshit da side.....

 

Fact #1 : Cheddi Jagan National Support

Cheddi Jagan could win any Free & Fair election

in Guyana during his lifetime.

 

Fact#2 : Cheddi Jagan - 90% INDIAN SUPPORT

Cheddi Jagan had unbreakable support

from 90% of the Indian Population in Guyana

at all times.

 

Fact #3 : Remaining 10% Non Jagan Indian Support

Ravi Dev, Roar, Jaguar, Jihajis & Balram Singh Rai

Independently or collectively could never get the 10%

of the Indian Vote or Population (Non-Jagan) to support them.

Ravi & Roar were always Scavengers - Sharing

De Scraps, Bones & Waste from the 10% Remaining

Non Jagan PPP Indian Supporters with

PNC, UF, WPA, Gump & Liberator Party

 

Fact # 4 Non Indian Votes -

Blacks, Mixed, Amerindians & All others

Cheddi Jagan also maintain at least 25-30% Support

from the Non-Indian Voters and

population in Guyana

at all times 

 

Fact #5 -  Guyana has only 2 Successful

Indian National Leaders who can stand on their own.

 

Jagan & Nagamootoo -

with Impressive records 

and Victories at every level

always stand at the Top.

 

Check PPP Congress Results

 

Check National Elections with

Jagan & Nagamootoo

on the Ticket....

 

Compare with Failures

Jagdeo

Ramotar

Ravi Dev

Leslie Ramsammy

Nanda Gopaul

Balram Singh Rai

Nadir

Hussain Ghani

 

Shaitee yuh thing

 u & Nanda-lolo mek de List?

The educational system was in place in BG way before indentured arrived. Before slavery was abolished, the British Parliament enacted laws for the education of the slaves. And Church school meet the challenge. When Indians were to be educated, the schools were already there with the teachers trained-all afro Guyanese. Cheddie himself went to church school. Later, he would campaign to rid the country of the church schools. That decision was in line with his Stalinist views that God has no place in Communism.

So PPP did not discourage Church schools, because Guyana is a multi-religious country and the christian schools were requiring hindus to take on Indian names and become christians to get a school job?  Rather than that being a Stalinist move?

Om Jai Cheddeeeee
Swami Jai cheddeee

The never ending bhajan from abbe uneducated coolies.

Ayuh how none of the intelligent posters on GNI have anything good to say about ayuh coolie gaad?

VP, here are a few points to consider:

== When Cheddi Jagan married Janet Rosenberg in 1943, Josef Stalin was ruler of the Soviet Union.

== When Janet Jagan got a boy child in 1949, Josef Stalin was still ruler of the Soviet Union.

== In the first edition of his book "The West on Trial", Jagan wrote he named his firstborn son Joey in honour of Josef Stalin.

== The PPP was formed in 1950. Stalin died in March 1953. The PPP won elections in April, one month after Stalin died. The British government suspended the Guiana constitution and removed the PPP government 6 months later on the grounds that it was communist.

== Police searched PPP members homes and found books written by Stalin and PPP May Day posters with Stalin's portrait. Check the newsreels videos in British Pathe website.

== During the Robertson Commission's hearings in 1954, Lionel Luckhoo questioned the PPP Leader: "Dr Jagan, are you a communist? Yes or No?

== Ten years later, the US and Britain successfully conspired to remove the "communist" PPP from government.

== VP, by the time you grew up to attend those meetings where Dr Jagan spoke, he could not have said complementary things about Stalin openly.

== In June 1969, Dr Jagan attended the International Conference of Communist and Workers Parties in Moscow and made a speech in which he declared: "This is where we [PPP] belong."

Before 1969 ended, the PPP declared itself a Marxist-Leninist party, changed its constitution to suit, and pledged allegiance to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union [CPSU] headed by Leonid Brezhnev, an unapologetic Stalinist.

== In 1985, shortly after Mikhael Gorbachev became Soviet leader, he bluntly declared that the CPSU was still Stalinist and he vowed to change it through glasnost and perestroika, openness and restructuring.

== All that time, Dr Jagan was uncritically supporting the CPSU and PPP members like myself followed the leader.

== One does not have to shout through a microphone "I am a Stalinist" to be a Stalinist.

Gil,

What was DR. Jagan position on Stalin vs Trotsky?  

 

I think it is fair to say he was Marxist-Leninist, but this Stalinist argument seems to be guilty by association.  Would Jagan be considered a dictator by giving critical support to Burnham?

 

Although  I was never heavily involved in politics my brother was and I never picked up from him that Jagan was a Stalinist.  I know my brother hated Stalin and a lot of his opinions where formulated from Cheddi.  I will keep an open mind and would like to hear from Odeen if he is reading this.

 

You said "Police searched PPP members homes and found books written by Stalin and PPP May Day posters with Stalin's portrait. Check the newsreels videos in British Pathe website." I read something on the Internet that the Stalin portrait during the May Day parade was a set up to make Cheddi look bad by elements within the PPP....I'll see if I can find it again.

Excerpt from Odeen Ishmael History:  The Guyana Story

 

THE “ULTRA-LEFTIST” SPLIT – 1956

About eighteen months after Burnham led the right-wing elements in splitting the PPP (in February 1955), the Party was affected by another split, this time from a small group which was headed by Martin Carter, Lionel Jeffrey, Rory Westmass, and Keith Carter. Their political position from time to time received support from Sydney King.

 

The members of this faction held leading positions in the Demerara Youth League (the front-name of the PYO) and the British Guiana Peace Committee where they took what the Party leadership regarded as some “ultra-left” positions. These exposed the Party to heavy attacks and criticisms from both the anti-PPP forces and the “right-wing” of the Party itself. During the 1953 May Day parade in Georgetown, this group displayed a huge banner of Stalin, even though the Party had decided not to display any banners showing support for the Soviet leader.

 

Clearly a rift was brewing, and from 1954 they began to attack the party on two issues. First, they stated that the party line of non-violence and civil disobedience against the Interim Government was anti-Marxist and non-revolutionary. Second, they demanded the abandonment of the Party’s stand on the Federation issue and wanted unconditional support of the planned West Indian Federation. Their attacks were directed against Dr. Jagan for his support for non-violence and civil disobedience, and for his and the Party’s view that the electorate should decide by referendum if Guyana should enter the West Indian Federation.

 

At the 1956 Congress of the PPP, Dr. Jagan sharply criticised the position of this faction in a paper submitted to the Congress. In this paper, Dr. Jagan described their pro-federation line as “adventurist”. He explained that the 1955 split had weakened the national movement and it would be unwise not to consider the views and weaknesses of the masses. He suggested that because of the existing political conditions, the leadership could not move too far ahead of the followers. He also argued that the PPP, as a broad national movement, led by Marxists but appealing to all sections, including local patriotic capitalists who were prepared to oppose colonialism and imperialism, “must guard against right and left opportunism”.

 

In a direct ideological debate with the group who accused the Party of taking anti-Marxist positions – (the members of this faction were also fond of quoting from the works of Marxist ideologies in attempts to back their positions) – Dr. Jagan used the occasion to answer them by also heavily referring to the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, among others, to expose the dogmatic views of this faction.

 

Dr. Jagan stated: “. . . . up to October 1953, we committed deviations to the left. We definitely overrated the revolutionary possibilities of our Party . . . . We became bombastic. . . . We were attacking everybody at the same time.” Since Carter and Westmass, and also King, were regarded as the most “bombastic” Marxists in the Party, they felt that Dr. Jagan’s statement attacked them personally and was aimed at blaming the “left-wingers” for the suspension of the constitution in 1953.

 

The faction finally seceded when the Party took disciplinary action against Keith Carter for refusing to obey Party instructions. Significantly, Sydney King attempted to defend the position of this faction at the congress, but he refused to join them in their secession from the Party.

Rouk hurry up bro havan start

Bring de dried coconuts and haags fuh de ceremonial slaughter quick

Hey bai

What about two black fowl? Dem haags is fuh personal use only. Me nah guy waste some perfectly good haags pin wan daag

Why the two of you don't take your feeding bottles and go suck them somewhere else?

Lol dude no one but you few ole daags give a bleep bout Cheddi

       
       


I have every right to be at dis Jaganistani Havana as a half Hindu. I call upon my chammar ancestry to witness my love of all tings Jaganistani

Are you Farouk Samaroo?

       
 
Are you Meh muddah man chap? Bail lefff Neh muddah. She already get wan man

You gat a lot of mouth and can't own up to who you are?

Look Johnny come lately newbie I have never ever made a secret of my identity here in the decade ive been posting on this forum. There is no one here who doesn't know who I am.

Ask any non newbie who I am.

VVP,
Would you like me to post who you are and would you care for me to post your personal info here?

There is an unwritten rule to not refer to people by their actual name here wen if you know their name.

I know a lot of people's personal identity here as do others but it's inappropriate to reveal such without permission.

Non newbie who is Mr. Shaitaan?

 

You know newbie is relative right?  I have been on this forum from the time it started until about 2001.

VVP,

I'm gonna respect your privacy. You are free to go down this low class road on your own. Enjoy!

I have always said who I am and have posted my full information here for Gil.

 

Vijay Puran

Oii..VVP..F.S is well known here and on his nick the aloo peeler.

How come the Black posters on GNI doan get into these antimanish runnings? Of who is who and who deh wid who wife and who been at Joe Kanhai backyard in 1998?

  

You bad talk Indians and yet set the worst example by your indecent language and insult of women on this forum.  Is that how you want to get elected?

I insult stupid women as I would a stupid man. That's called equality. A stupid woman deserves all of the respect and deference of a stupid man. Which is to say none.

Good luck with your political career man you will need it.

Stalin Photo was shipped around to PPP cells in the country. In particular, it was sent to our home. Instructions to my father-the Governor was to arrive at the Rosignol Train Station, he was to protest with the huge portrait of Stalin hung around his neck. He did as requested. The following morning,about 3.30, the Colonial Police(3 lorries) with guns and bayonets surrounded the house. With a warrant they searched. As soon the mischief was carried out, the portraits would transported elsewhere.    

Thanks for your good wishes. I'll be sure to stay clear of drug dealers who might cut it short.

That too.  Just don't be like Mr. McLaughlin.

I can't imagine why our Indo kids prefer the company of Blacks Hispanics as opposed to abbe antimanish coolie culture of Jaganism and Jagan's cultists.