We can make a difference

August 26, 2005

Dear Sir,

Bermudians, we need to look into our hearts and souls and figure out what we want the future of our small Island's environment to be and look like. How the destruction of our marine and terrestrial environment may affect our health, our way of life and or relationships with each other. I'm sick of being told that we don't care about the environment. It's not that we don't care, we're just too busy, working to pay our rents and mortgages, buying groceries and sending or children to school, to take a breath and look around and realise that our beautiful Island is being ripped apart and once the land and fish are gone we can't get them back. Bermuda is looking like a concrete jungle divided by hedges and we seem to have no control.

The Government should be commended on it's sustainable Development programme, “Charting our course: Sustaining Bermuda”. We Bermudians need to read and understand the information provided, the statistics are staggering, and they should make us all stand up for our rights and become part of the solution.

We can and must make a difference by getting involved. Educating ourselves and making sure that the decisions we make concerning the environment are guided by that education and the knowledge that what we do today will ultimately affect us.

“Our material progress is achieved at the cost of passing on a wasteland to our grandchildren” - Maurice F. Strong - Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

LISABET OUTERBRIDGE

Smith's Parish

‘Neo-liberal' argument

September 3, 2005

Dear Sir,

I hope you will allow me to reply to Mr. Stewart's recent articles concerning sustainable development. Mr. Stewart's commitment to environmental issues is well known, and it is not my intention to question his ‘greenness'. Nor am I questioning whether or not the sustainable development project will, as he fears, mutate into a whole economic blueprint for Bermuda. My only interest is to critique his neo-liberal argument.

The argument rests on the two premises ‘…economic planning does not work…' and that ‘…the motivating force of self-interest creates an unintended consequence of prosperity.' Due to size restrictions I will deal primarily with the first premise here.

In his first premise Mr. Stewart appears guilty of either intellectual dishonesty, ignorance of history or blind allegiance to the ruling classes' ideological hegemony. It seems obvious that he is referring in his articles to the tragedy that was the USSR. It is true that the command economy controlled by the Soviet bureaucracy that arose along with the ascendance of Stalin committed grave errors manifested in shoddy or unnecessary products and regional ‘ecocide.' These factors combined to help stagnate the Soviet economy, resulting in economic decline and the 1989 Soviet implosion. Does this mean that the command economy in itself was to blame? No, not necessarily. One could just as easily explain the collapse as resulting from the self-interested bureaucratic control over the command economy as opposed to democratic control (a point emphasised in the writings of Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Luxembourg, Lenin and Trotsky).

In fact, if one looks at the pre-Stalinist period of the USSR (1917-1928), where the command economy was more under democratic control of local soviets (democratic councils of workers and citizens) one sees stunning economic growth and technological improvements in addition to a cultural renaissance. Incidentally, this period also found the USSR to be the most environmentally conscious nation then in existence, with eminent conservationists and scientists such as Lunacharskii, Vernadsky and Vavilov initiating a series of environmental reforms and conservation initiatives. The success of the Stalinist counter-revolution (a form of fascism) was reflected in the rise of Lysenko and purges of environmentalists with the subsequent decimation of the Soviet conservation movement. The motivation of the Soviet state changed from one of ecological and social profit to one of military and bureaucratic interests at all costs.

It is important to note here that Stalinism was not the result a democratic command economy, but rather a middle class counter-revolution resulting from Soviet economic isolation following the abortive 1918-1919 European revolutions (especially that of Germany), economic sanctions, civil war with the ‘whites' and simultaneous military invasion be several major military powers hoping to crush the fledgling USSR.

Perhaps a more recent example of the power of command economies can be seen in the Second World War war effort. The fascist “war-socialism” of Germany easily overwhelmed the British and French, clearly seen in the forced evacuation of Dunkirk. The British and French were ill-equipped in all vital equipment (except perhaps boats), despite the fact that neither countries national economies showed a shortage of profitable consumer goods. In fact British arms-dealers had made large profits right up to the outbreak of war selling to the highest bidders - Nazi Germany. Only by introducing a war-socialism of their own were the British able to defend themselves, and the command-economy of the USSR, as impaired as it was under Stalinism, proved to be the key factor in Hitler's defeat, out-producing even the Americans in military equipment once the initial shock of invasion wore off. The self-interest of the capitalists was to make a profit, while the self-interest of the nation was to survive. The same is true today, the capitalist is only interested in profit; the people are interested in ecological and social justice.

Even from this abridged history one can conclude that economic planning can work, indeed it can even be far superior to our own capitalist mode of production with its anarchy of the markets, but only when it is under democratic control. Under our own capitalist system we are seeing an erosion of democratic control over our very existence with massive corporations making decisions based on short-term profit that affects whole peoples and ecosystems. Under the banner of short-term profit we are committing global ecocide, sabotaging education and social welfare, glorifying and encouraging a culture of vulgar materialism and instant gratification without considering the consequences of our actions. We are only now beginning to reap that which we have sown, and without fundamental socio-economic change the future seems one of barbarism and ecological catastrophes.

J. STARLING

Hamilton Parish

Parental responsibility

September 2, 2005

Dear Sir,

In reference to your article, “Child's injury provokes call for change in camps policy” on September 2, we feel as private camp organisers that it should be the responsibility of the parent to enquire about a camp's policies i.e. safety measures, and ratio of adults to children.

Camp organisers and counsellors should be able to provide concerned parents with information regarding the above mentioned. Ultimately it is a parent's responsibility to choose a camp that meets their criteria and expectations. As a parent would you send your child to camp that you felt was poorly supervised?

Due to the large number of children with working parents, camps are a necessity for school breaks. Therefore, if camps were over-regulated many camps may be forced to close. We run a camp that many children attend each school break because parents feel involved and confident that their children are being well taken care of.

As a camp we take pride in the fact that we provide a safe and well supervised environment. All private camps should not be penalised for one camp's mishaps.

HURRICANES CAMP COUNSELORS

Devonshire

Short memories

August 18, 2005

Dear Sir,

I am still in a state of shock after listening to the ZBM's 7 p.m. news on Wednesday August 17, 2005, concerning West Indians.

I could not believe a certain person had the nerve to criticise the public concerning their attitudes towards West Indians.

I can remember when that person made a very cold remark that all “Europeans stink and they always smell” and they need a bath.

My, how some people have a very short, short memory.

ILOW

PSEUDONYM

Outside the box?

September 1, 2005

Dear Sir,

I can't help but wonder about The Bermuda Cement Company (BCC) and the West End Development Company (Wedco) saga and if there is more to it then meets the eye. Could it be, that if the Bermuda Government decides to finally construct a new Causeway bridge, that the one and only importer of cement will play a vital, if not a very profitable role in the venture.

Should this be the case, it will be interesting to see whose names appear on the registry as principals of the one and only supplier of cement to the Government of Bermuda.

Maybe I am just thinking outside of the box. Or, am I?

GEORGE M. STONE

Warwick

Humour shortage

September 2, 2005

Dear Sir,

The reaction of the PLP spokesmen to the Limey In Bermuda satire is a fine example of how much more seriously politicians view themselves than do the rest of the population. Not just the PLP by the way - some of us will remember a UBP Cabinet Minister walking out of a No The UmUm show because he was being portrayed without the necessary “respect”.

IAN HILTON

Paget