Historical clarifications

September 15, 2005

Dear Sir,

I write to comment on a letter to the editor written by J. Starling as he responded to someone else?s letter (a Mr. Stewart ). As he put it , Mr. Starling was interested in critiquing a ?neo-liberal argument?. It is here that I join in since the ?neo-liberalism? that Mr. Starling seeks to contest in Mr. Stewart?s letter is, in my opinion, without going in depth into the argument of these two men, just what Bermuda needs more of. If by neo-liberalism we mean an American hybrid of non-specific character characterised by a package of politically expedient positions, accepting elements of conservative critiques of the welfare state, while detaching from uncritical endorsement of trade unionism; favour being given to selective state intervention in the economy mainly to assist in restructuring of production towards new industries and services, and to find forms of welfare provision which are neither excessively bureaucratic nor conducive to welfare dependence also characterise the position.

Neo-liberalism demonstrates a concern for social pluralism and tolerance. Its foreign policy is ambiguous, being masked by defence policies and programmes which urge greater reliance on conventional armaments while complementing reductions in nuclear arms. Mr. Starling?s letter was close to a historical narrative, in his words, on European History with much on the subject of Soviet Russia and on the subject of the Second World War as well. I have read some on this subject and am left with very different impressions regarding some historical events and people upon whom he commented.

The stunning economic growth referred to in Russia cannot be seen to refer to the period 1917-1921, as Mr. Starling suggests. During this period Russia was in the throes of the deepest, darkest revolution. The New Economic Policy (NEP) formed under Lenin quickly lost momentum after Lenin?s death in 1924, since Stalin turned the economy in a direction of his own making after Lenin?s death and his own ascension to power. By 1928 NEP was unrecognisable.

Mr. Starling also refers to Stalinism as ?a form of fascism?. This could not be farther from the truth. Fascism, when used generically, as here, is a term characterised by strongly nationalist, and violently anti-communist and anti-Marxist movements. In paragraph four of Mr. Starling?s letter he write as if the fledgeling state now known to the world as the USSR was somehow a victim. If he believes Lenin, he is right: ?Imperialism? and ?Monopoly Capitalism? were to blame. Justified was the immediate transformation of society in the most radical and revolutionary way to reverse the perceived relations of domination and submission and the goal of spreading revolution to the world. In the face of German military might and now the threat of revolution spreading, the response of Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George was to me more understandable as they attempted to make the world once again ?safe for democracy?.

Finally, in referring to the Second World War you refer to the fascist ?war-socialism? of that country Germany. Why not just say ?Nazism?? Further, I dispute whether it easily overwhelmed the British and French as you say. Britain certainly was never even occupied. In general terms, I differ greatly with your pessimistic world-view of the innate decadence of the capitalist system as you characterise it with your hybrid of leftist thought. The fulcrum of property and power will probably always create struggle for mankind.

End Hamilton vagrancy

September 11, 2005

Dear Sir,

Last Saturday?s letter from Disgusted in Pembroke brings the problem of vagrants and loiterers not only home but it should shock everyone. It?s a prime example of a major social problem that the PLP, the Corporation and the Police either have no idea what to do about or are afraid to do anything. Vagrancy against the law and loitering can be. I do not include begging as a subject here because I realise that the Police do what they can and the Courts just release the beggars. This really is becoming a serious issue. We are turning over the streets of Hamilton to the people who are social misfits and quite often threats to other people.

They beg, get drunk, urinate and defecate in public (sorry, check out the trash receptacles sometime!) leave their litter and their bedding all over the place and generally loaf and laze the day away. I am well aware that there are reasons for their behaviour and I am sure that the people at the Corporation, the Police and the PLP headquarters will (a) blame it on everybody else and (b) tell us that we have to eradicate the reasons before we can do anything about the problem. No one wants to touch this issue because they all seem to think the vagrants have a social and legal right to do what they do.

While Bermuda retains great physical beauty and there are many plusses to living and working here, you would have to live under a major rock not to see that the quality of life for virtually everyone has deteriorated substantially over the past ten years. The City of Hamilton is the centre of Bermuda ? residents and visitors alike are in the City everyday in droves; pedestrians use the sidewalks, shoppers use the shops, everybody uses the offices and we all come into contact with the beggars and vagrants.

The streets have become acceptably filthy, the Parks (except Barrs Bay) are filled with litter, smokers stand outside office buildings and litter even more, and the vagrants are not homeless ? they will always have Hamilton! We must try to do something about this and it is the responsibility of our leaders ? the Corporation, the Police and the Government ? to lead. I?ve talked to some people in each group and they all seem to be leaderless, and unwilling to do anything because either they don?t know what to do or they are waiting for someone in authority to authorise them to do something.

I repeat ? vagrancy is against the law. Put up some signs and loitering becomes illegal. Threatening behaviour is against the law. These people are not harmless and they have to be held accountable. Dare I suggest a greater Police presence? I say challenge them and get them off the streets of Hamilton ? they have no more right to be there than I do.

Pension woes

September 10

Dear Sir,

So, I have learned today, that after 16 years on the island, 16 years of pension contributions, that I will not receive a pension from the Bermuda Government. Eighteen years is the starting point ? and then I have to apply in 25 years time for a refund. Like that is going to get a response. I was never made aware of this, and have not heard of such before. Why can?t I get a refund if I leave next year? Is the Government not ?clamping?, down on employers who deduct contributions from employees, never to be seen again, and calling it theft? This covers both past and present parties. Surely a change must be put into place. I look to the UBP to push for it.