Lets hear your view of Cheddi.  Just don't start tearing into what I wrote.

My recollection is different. The Portugese, Chinese and wealthy Indians (a significant amount of folks) did not favor nationalization, in so much they fled because they feared it would cost them their businesses. Secondly, there were those (mostly middle class blacks, portugese and "red" man) who held high positions at Bookers etc. and were quite comfortable. They too did not want Burnham or Jagan running things.

 

The support for nationalization came from the hoi polloi who didn't know what marxism, socialism or anything meant. The average canecutter, black laborer / civil service worker were clueless. All they heard was there will be freeness thru socialism, so they wanted it.

 

Another instance where educated Indians, blacks, portugese and chinese were united in their beliefs.

Yes, this is a fair assessment and I recall something along these lines, but what percentage of the population do you think this "group" comprised?

I'll spare you all a fine nuanced analysis as I don't care to waste more ink on that Antiman Cumrag Cheddi.

Thank the gods he dropped dead of a heart attack. In another country and with any other race, he would have gotten the Gandhi treatment. One bullet to a tyrant is better than the decades of suffering he inflicted on Guyana.

Jagan was only worshipped by abbe low class Hindus. He's ayuh gaad. Keep him to ayuhself.

No one cares nor wishes to wash his feet in condensed milk. And ayuh can keep ayuh Blue Eyed Bhowgie to ayuhself.

He's your god. God of abbe dunce Hindus. Praise he at the mandir not the public square.

I guess you have the right to make unsubstantiated comments also.

P.S... The worst insult my mother can give is a reference to someone practicing "Jagan politics." Aka low life Hindu.

So VVP,

How come abbe fullahman dem, abbe Black people, abbe Christians, etc etc doan worship de Lard Cheddi? Only abbe low class hoi polloi (thank u Itame for the reminded) and assorted low class estate coolies. Face it chap, he is only revered among abbe estate Hindu coolies.

VVP,

Your thoughts are no different from the majority of Indians. All of us grew up under Jagan and Indians saw him as a charismatic leader, despite his socialist views. Even when he was in the opposition he was still honest and admired by many.

 

His weakness, and Indian's biggest downfall in Guyana was his ideology. He was not only socialist, he was a Communist with strong ties to Stalinist Russia. As such, he spent his lifetime opposing America and the West, without an understanding that Guyana is in their backyard.

 

You may not have seen this written anywhere but you are smart enough to appreciate the fact that Cheddi is responsible for Indian's predicament in Guyana today. Instead of bringing Indians into the modern era, he kept them tied to a plantation (unlike Singapore's late leader) economy,, and they remain economically and politically docile and backward. Think about it, a socialist is generally a revolutionary who believes in the use of force to remove an unjust government. Cheddi accepted a socialist world view and the socialist economic plan but he disavowed its radical component. He admired Castro and Che but never thought of adopting their radical approach to change.Some would argue that this was the reason why the PPP feels comfortable being in the opposition. The are used to it.

 

Regarding post-1992: Yes Cheddi died too early. He left a set of losers and nincompoops to run the party. They ran the party and PPP-controlled overnment into the ground. 

 

So I would say this: Cheddi and Burnham are both responsible for our problems today. Cheddi takes a bigger part of the blame because he established the first mass based party in Guyana.  In addition, he was outmaneuvered by Burnham abd the west. His ideology was wrong for us...Indians are NOT socialists. Here is the other problem: his dogmatic alliance to the socialist world view preclude his from exploring other plans and options to solve Guyyana's race/ethnic problem. He felt race would disappear when the "working class" unite. In essence, Cheddi was a leader who lived at a different time and could not foresee the issues we face today, such as the West is not our enemy, race is more important than class, etc.

 

Finally, the other downfall of the PPP, which is responsible for it being in the dire situation it is in today is the fact that its democratic centralist top down party structufe does not allow criticism of the leadership. Over the years, the PPP has destroyed, expelled, isolated the intellectual elements within the party.

 

By the way, Rambarack's book on Rai, which I have been rereading recently, has a very good critique of Cheddi. I feel the book is more about Cheddi and his weaknesses.

 

Hope this clarifies some of the issues you raised. Good to see that you are reflecting on the homeland.

dese jaganistanis jus live and breathe Cheddi

Hate to sound like DG, but your conclusions are not based on facts.  By the way, I am not religious.  I believe your "salvation" is based on the work you do on earth today..that line of discussion is for another thread.  I am interested in hearing what people thoughts are.  Make concrete points like Itaname above.

Freaky,

You think abbe Jaganistanis juss cry at dem own papa and mama funeral like dis?

Me certain sure Jagan pickney doan lament and bytch and moan about Jagan's death as much as abbe Jaganistanis.

VVP,

Your thoughts are no different from the majority of Indians. All of us grew up under Jagan and Indians saw him as a charismatic leader, despite his socialist views. Even when he was in the opposition he was still honest and admired by many.

 

His weakness, and Indian's biggest downfall in Guyana was his ideology. He was not only socialist, he was a Communist with strong ties to Stalinist Russia. As such, he spent his lifetime opposing America and the West, without an understanding that Guyana is in their backyard.

 

You may not have seen this written anywhere but you are smart enough to appreciate the fact that Cheddi is responsible for Indian's predicament in Guyana today. Instead of bringing Indians into the modern era, he kept them tied to a plantation (unlike Singapore's late leader) economy,, and they remain economically and politically docile and backward. Think about it, a socialist is generally a revolutionary who believes in the use of force to remove an unjust government. Cheddi accepted a socialist world view and the socialist economic plan but he disavowed its radical component. He admired Castro and Che but never thought of adopting their radical approach to change.Some would argue that this was the reason why the PPP feels comfortable being in the opposition. The are used to it.

 

Regarding post-1992: Yes Cheddi died too early. He left a set of losers and nincompoops to run the party. They ran the party and PPP-controlled overnment into the ground. 

 

So I would say this: Cheddi and Burnham are both responsible for our problems today. Cheddi takes a bigger part of the blame because he established the first mass based party in Guyana.  In addition, he was outmaneuvered by Burnham abd the west. His ideology was wrong for us...Indians are NOT socialists. Here is the other problem: his dogmatic alliance to the socialist world view preclude his from exploring other plans and options to solve Guyyana's race/ethnic problem. He felt race would disappear when the "working class" unite. In essence, Cheddi was a leader who lived at a different time and could not foresee the issues we face today, such as the West is not our enemy, race is more important than class, etc.

 

Finally, the other downfall of the PPP, which is responsible for it being in the dire situation it is in today is the fact that its democratic centralist top down party structufe does not allow criticism of the leadership. Over the years, the PPP has destroyed, expelled, isolated the intellectual elements within the party.

 

By the way, Rambarack's book on Rai, which I have been rereading recently, has a very good critique of Cheddi. I feel the book is more about Cheddi and his weaknesses.

 

Hope this clarifies some of the issues you raised. Good to see that you are reflecting on the homeland.

 

 

Regarding the last issue you raised RE:why did West accept him? You are right. The Cold War was over and the Bush administration could now tolerate a Cheddi Jagan government. In any case, the US was more than willing to accept a democratic government coming to power through free and fair elections. Besides, Guyana was not now in 1992 like Chile in 1973, where US had tremendous economic investment in the country that led them to remove a democratically elected government under Allende. By this time the world had changed and Cheddi was, in any case, not like a radical Fidel Castro. He had also indicated in newspaper interviews that he accepted an end to the Cold War.       

How come ayuh Jaganistanis doan drink some paisin and go jine ayuh gaad? Leff abbe not so dunce coolies to live abbe life in peace

VVP,

I can say more but will await your questions. Hope this helps buddy.

Lol de coolie worle would be a much bettuh place sans jaganistanis

I changed my mind Freaky. I'm now in favor of partition. Guyana must be partitioned. All Jaganites should be expelled to Jaganistan.

This is a serious post Shaits....if you have nothing useful to say, except your usual self-hating coolie nonsense, youshould take Ramjattan's advise and "haul yo arse".

Vish

Self-hating?

Look Antiman, Jagan ain't my god. I was raised thankfully by sensible Muslims and Christians who doan worship rocks and Jagans.

You should be having a discussion with Brother Eusi...but I dont think you are intellectually deep enough to understand that even Kwayana has advanced his arguments.

Cheddie condoned corruption since in the fifties-cronyism, nepotism, rigged election with his party, etc,etc. He was a subversive/saboteur. He glorified everything Stalinist-he sung praises to Stalin's name. That was his god. He is a liar to the nation of Guyana. He destroyed the character of many good decent honest men by telling the masses of Indoes that such men are colonial stooges. Anytime a political organization rose in Guyana to bring progress to the citizens, Cheddie get in its midst convincing the honest that he had the power of Indo votes, And the honest succumb to his charms, only later to be marginalized by the Pappa Doctor.

 

He smiled alot, but never serious about nation building. He believed governance is only WINNING. He cultured a group of crooks. And people still want to believe he was not corrupted-he was corrupted of political decency. However, he in the company of every Guyanese President including Granger.

Awwww Vish hurt my feewlings.

Maybe you doan realize how schupid ayuh look to sensible people with this Jagan dik suckathon.

I now proffer to you the advice and counsel my most noble and illustrious grandfather gives to all Jaganites: " Bai, dis ting good fuh cold and fuh kaff"!

There you go again...bullying people with your pejoratives...sound like a man lacking ample vocabulary. Where on this post do you see people saying Jagan is a God. VVP raised some interesting questions...find another post you foolism man. 

How did he keep indians tied to the plantations?  What should he have done?  What about the indians in the rice industry how they separated from the plantation?

Lmfao @ dicksuckathon
Necropheliacs yikes

Spoken like a true devil!  Like PaPa like GrandPaPa like Son.  I hope the admin take note of your language.

 

Do you have something that could back this up? 

Every Freedom House lout was required by Cumrag Cheddi to have a Russian name. He was "Berret"

Talk about delusional coolies.

Shaitann could you please stay off this thread if you have nothing to contribute.

no other nation in the world mourn fuh a dead president like Guyanese coolies
dis man bin dead fuh almost 2 decades now, move on

The White Paper on the suspension of the 1953 Constitution documents his attendance to Stalinist Rallies in Moscow. He paid homage to the mass murderer. It is good reading-google it. I heard the reading of the Suspension Order in 1953 on the radio. Some 20 years later, I had copy given to me as I was doing a research of that political period. As I read it, I knew it was true to every word. 

Come on Bro. Freak.

Dem hindu bais wanna mourn the Dear Comrade Founder Leader in peace.

Prem se bholo Jaganji! Jai!

He placed heavy emphasis on agriculture, even though understandably Guyana was an agricultural based society and very underdeveloped. However, not much was done to wean Indians away from farming. The PPP manifesto continued to invest in agriculture, as they should, but issues like diversification and the creation of tertiary and quaternary industries around rice and sugar were ignored. For example, when in the 1970s Brazil experienced the oil market shock they invested heavily in ethanol, now making cars using ethanol. Sugar could be packaged and processed and sold to the west. The same with rice, Guyana could have created different varieties and process and package them to be sold to the industrialized countries also. However, innovative ideas were not applied to both industries. Trinidad had long ago dismantled their Caroni sugar plantation by giving the land to the sugar workers. Clive Thomas did a thorough research on the sugar industry and he had long ago argued for diversification. For Cheddi, the sugar and rice workers were vote banks.

The PPP have several monthly publications which make reference to this fact.

You know when a popular person dies, there is myth about them-like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Che Guevara. So far the multitude of Indo Guyanese doan have anyone else other than CBJ-it is their CULT.  

See also Stephen Rabe which gives a good summary on US intervention in Guyana. Also the US government has released, under the freedom of information act, a ton of information regarding its relations with Guyana. 

Stop demonizing the greatest Guyanese that ever lived and Father of the Nation, not a crook like Burnham.

 

Jagan saved us from PNC tyranny although it took 28 years. Pity he did not live long enough to rule Guyana.

 

Hopefully, our Coalition will continue Jagan's pro-people policies with Bro. Mose leading the show.

You are so foolish. "Beret" is not a Russian name (like Alexi). You have not read the West on Trial.  If you had, you would have known that Jagan wanted to be westernized like the people he met...thus he substituted Beret for Bharat. Not that I agree with this ....but GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT and stop throwing shite on this thread as if you know what you are talking about. 

He was the father of the nation indeed. Jay, we are engaged in a little bit of introspection,  unlike Shaitaan who wants to SLASH and BURN everything about Jagan.

Repackaging and ethanol would still  require the cane cutters unless the system was mechanized. I think there was and still is a conscious effort to keep people employed and is a the reason why the sugar industry is the way it is.   This new government also seems to view it this way. 

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.