Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013): Tariq Ali on Late British PM’s Legacy from Austerity to Apartheid

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has died at the age of 87. Thatcher was Britain’s first female prime minister, serving three terms in office. Known as the "Iron Lady," Thatcher became synonymous with austerity economics as a close ally of President Ronald Reagan. She famously declared to critics of neoliberal capitalism that "there is no alternative." Her long-running battle with striking British miners dealt a major blow to the union movement in Britain and ushered in a wave of privatizations. On foreign policy, Thatcher presided over the Falklands War with Argentina, provided critical support to the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and famously labeled Nelson Mandela a "terrorist" while backing South Africa’s apartheid regime. We go to London to discuss Thatcher’s legacy with Tariq Ali, British-Pakistani political commentator, writer, activist and editor of the New Left Review. [includes rush transcript]

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to the breaking news of the death of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the age of 87. She was Britain’s first female prime minister, serving three terms in office. Known as the "Iron Lady," Margaret Thatcher became synonymous with austerity economics as a close ally of President Ronald Reagan. She famously declared to critics of neoliberal capitalism that, quote, "There is no alternative." Her long-running battle with striking British miners dealt a major blow to the union movement in Britain and ushered in a wave of privatizations. On foreign policy, Thatcher presided over the Falklands War with Argentina and provided critical support to the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

To discuss Margaret Thatcher’s legacy, we go now to London, where we’re joined by Tariq Ali, British-Pakistani political commentator, writer, activist and editor of the New Left Review.

In these last minutes we have, Tariq, talk about the legacy of, talk about the tenure of the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

TARIQ ALI: Amy, there’s no doubt about it. She transformed British politics. She basically won over the opposition. Her legacy is still very much in force, so she’s not at all dead in terms of what is going on in this country. Her policies are being carried out by the coalition government. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, New Labour prime ministers, were completely enthralled to her. She was the first person invited by Blair to 10 Downing Street when he became prime minister, to show how much he owed her, and Gordon Brown did exactly the same thing. So we have had a continuum, that the process Margaret Thatcher started off was carried on by Blair, who used rhetoric on the Iraq, Kosovo and Afghan wars very similar to the rhetoric she used on the Falklands. And this policy has continued. So her legacy is effectively to have wrecked Britain economically and to have made it a total vassal state of the American empire.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq, can you talk about the legacy of Thatcherism for the working class in Britain?

TARIQ ALI: Well, basically, she took on the workers’ movement, which had become very strong. Trade unions were very powerful in this country, and they were effectively challenging capital by demanding a share of the take, and being quite successful. The miners’ union, one of the most respected unions in the country, challenged her. She organized the state, the use of the police, use of the secret services, to defeat them. And she did it, and she referred to union militancy as "the enemy within." She was very hot on enemies, either abroad or at home. And that phrase, "the enemy within," has been used subsequently against dissidents of other sorts by her successors.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about her foreign policy, from the Falklands War—and we only have a minute—to her support of the apartheid regime, calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist?

TARIQ ALI: Well, she did call Nelson Mandela a terrorist, but one should remember that the Western governments as a whole were not at all friendly to the ANC, sustained and maintained apartheid, with a few exceptions in Scandinavia, throughout it. And Thatcher was upfront about it. Her foreign policy was deeply conservative and reactionary, and that foreign policy has not changed since she was forced out on Europe. Europe is still a big, big divisive issue in the country and within the Conservative Party as a whole.

And so, on every level, Amy, domestic level, international level, Thatcherism continues. One shouldn’t imagine that it’s over. And I hate to say this, but the fact that we haven’t come up, or no one has—neither the center-left or anyone else has managed to come up with an alternative to the Wall Street crash of 2008, does indicate that there was some truth in her statement that there is no alternative, at least as far as the mainstream is concerned.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Ali, I want to thank you for being with us, British-Pakistani political commentator, historian, activist, filmmaker, novelist and editor of the New Left Review, joining us from London on this late breaking news that the former prime minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, has died at the age of 87.

That does it for our show. Tune in tomorrow. Will Potter of Green is the New Red will be on to talk about how over a dozen state legislatures have introduced bills to target people who go undercover to expose farm animal abuse.

Petition asks: No state funeral for Thatcher/ Privatise Thatcher Funeral

A Thatcher state funeral would be bound to lead to protests

The Tory prime minister wasn't a great leader. She was the most socially destructive British politician of our times

It might seem an odd time to be trying it on, but a drive to rehabilitate Margaret Thatcher is now in full flow. A couple of years back, true believers were beside themselves at the collapse of their heroine's reputation. The Tory London mayor, Boris Johnson, complained that Thatcher's name had become a "boo-word", a "shorthand for selfishness and me-firstism". Her former PR guru Maurice Saatchi fretted that "her principles of capitalism are under question".

In opposition, David Cameron tried to distance himself from her poisonous "nasty party" legacy. But just as he and George Osborne embark on even deeper cuts and more far-reaching privatisation of public services than Thatcher herself managed, Meryl Streep's The Iron Lady is about to come to the rescue of the 1980s prime minister's reputation.

As the Hollywood actor's startling Thatcher recreation looks down from every other bus, commentators have insisted that the film is "not political". True, it doesn't explicitly take sides in the most conflagrationary decade in postwar British politics. It is made clear that Thatcher's policies were controversial and strongly opposed. But as director Phyllida Lloyd points out: "The whole story is told from her point of view."

People are shown to be out to get her – but not quite why. We see the angry faces of protesters and striking miners from inside her car, not the devastated communities they come from. By focusing on her dementia, it invites sympathy for a human being struggling with the trials of old age. Remarkably, a woman who vehemently rejected feminism is celebrated as a feminist icon, and a politician who waged naked class war is portrayed battling against class prejudice.

Lloyd herself is unashamed about the film's thrust: this is "the story of a great leader who is both tremendous and flawed". Naturally, some of Thatcher's supporters and family members have balked at the depiction of her illness.

But her authorised biographer, the high Tory Charles Moore, has no doubts about the The Iron Lady's effective political message. The Oscar-bound movie is, he declares, a "most powerful piece of propaganda for conservatism". And for many people under 40, their view of Thatcher and what she represents will be formed by this film.

Meanwhile, last week's release of 1981 cabinet papers has given another impetus to Thatcher revisionism. The revelation that she authorised a secret back-channel to the IRA during the hunger strikes and opposed Treasury attempts to deny Liverpool a paltry cash injection after the Toxteth riots has been hailed as evidence of the pragmatism of a leader known for unswerving implacability.

But most shocking are the secret preparations now being made to give Thatcher a state funeral. In the 20th century only one former prime minister, Winston Churchill, was given such a ceremonial send-off. Churchill had his own share of political enemies, of course, from the south Wales valleys to India. But his role as war leader when Britain was threatened with Nazi invasion meant he was accepted as a national figure at his death. Thatcher, who cloaked herself in the political spoils of a vicious colonial war in the South Atlantic, has no such status, and is the most divisive British politician of our time.

Gordon Brown absurdly floated a state funeral in a fruitless attempt to appease the Daily Mail. But the coalition would be even more foolish if it were to press ahead with what is currently planned. A state funeral for Thatcher would not be regarded as any kind of national occasion by millions of people, but as a partisan Conservative event and an affront to large parts of the country.

Not only in former mining communities and industrial areas laid waste by her government, but across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted – and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown. Now protests are taking the form of satirical e-petitions for the funeral to be privatised: if it goes ahead, there are likely to be protests and demonstrations.

This is a politician, after all, who never won the votes of more than a third of the electorate; destroyed communities; created mass unemployment; deindustrialised Britain; redistributed from poor to rich; and, by her deregulation of the City, laid the basis for the crisis that has engulfed us 25 years later.

Thatcher was a prime minister who denounced Nelson Mandela as a terrorist, defended the Chilean fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet, ratcheted up the cold war, and unleashed militarised police on trade unionists and black communities alike. She was Britain's first woman prime minister, but her policies hit women hardest, like Cameron's today.

A common British establishment view – and the implicit position of The Iron Lady – is that while Thatcher took harsh measures and "went too far", it was necessary medicine to restore the sick economy of the 1970s to healthy growth.

It did nothing of the sort. Average growth in the Thatcherite 80s, at 2.4%, was exactly the same as in the sick 70s – and considerably lower than during the corporatist 60s. Her government's savage deflation destroyed a fifth of Britain's industrial base in two years, hollowed out manufacturing, and delivered a "productivity miracle" that never was, and we're living with the consequences today.

What she did succeed in doing was to restore class privilege, boosting profitability while slashing employees' share of national income from 65% to 53% through her assault on unions. Britain faced a structural crisis in the 1970s, but there were multiple routes out of it. Thatcher imposed a neoliberal model now seen to have failed across the world.

It's hardly surprising that some might want to put a benign gloss on Thatcher's record when another Tory-led government is forcing through Thatcher-like policies – and riots, mounting unemployment and swingeing benefits cuts echo her years in power. The rehabilitation isn't so much about then as now, which is one reason it can't go unchallenged. Thatcher wasn't a "great leader". She was the most socially destructive prime minister of modern times.

The Guardian

Seumas Milne

Abaixo-assinado pede privatização do enterro de Thatcher

Uma petição ao governo britânico pede que o enterro de Margaret Thatcher seja privatizado. Trata-se, evidentemente, de uma sarcástica crítica a sua gestão (1979-1990).

Thatcher foi, com o general Augusto Pinochet, que governou o Chile de 1973 a também 1990, a grande defensora do neoliberalismo. Os dois foram o modelo do modelo que até hoje domina boa parte do debate econômico.

Muita gente questiona o prefixo “neo” à palavra liberal. Mas o que diferenciava ao “neo” do liberalismo clássico?  Sob o rótulo liberal, estavam identificadas uma série de políticas de respeito e proteção ao indivíduo. Algumas políticas liberais exigiam, inclusive, a participação do Estado, no sentido de “igualar os desiguais” – na educação pública, por exemplo.


No neoliberalismo, a grande função do Estado é garantir que a esfera econômica, exclusivamente, esteja livre para atuar. Ou seja, no novo liberalismo, longe de tentar, por vias tortas que fossem, igualar os desiguais, o papel do Estado é garantir que a desigualdade seja usada como instrumento econômico.

Por isso setores que namoram o socialismo (não, não estou falando de Obama) na esquerda americana aceitam o rótulo de “liberal”, enquanto um ditador com as mãos sujas de sangue como Pinochet é um neoliberal.

O caso do Chile é mais radical, mas Thatcher também ilustra bem esse poder de vida e de morte do Estado sobre o indivíduo, no sentido de preservar a “livre concorrência” dos fortes contra os fracos.

Privatizar um funeral significa levar às últimas consequências o neoliberalismo, ou seja, dizer simbolicamente que a sociedade não tem responsabilidade sobre a dignidade de ninguém, mesmo na morte. Foi essa lógica que Thatcher implementou no governo do Reino Unido e ajudou a exportar para o mundo a partir do momento que assumiu o posto de primeira-ministra.

Em 1981, Bobby Sands, um prisioneiro do IRA (Exército Republicano Irlandês), morreu após uma longa greve de fome, mesmo destino de outros nove companheiros. Sands havia sido eleito deputado, e, apesar da pressão internacional, Thatcher recusou-se a negociar com eles. Seu funeral foi acompanhado por 100 mil pessoas.

O funeral, público ou privado de Thatcher, vai conseguir reunir 100 mil carpideiras neoliberais?

Haroldo Ceravolo Sereza

Abaixo-assinado pede privatização do enterro de Thatcher

Adeus da Dama de Ferro

Pós Aula: O que é a poesia? Com Chacal

A segunda aula da Universidade das Quebradas na Rocinha foi animadíssima. Com a presença do poeta Chacal, os novos quebradeiros participaram de uma discussão que começou em torno da poesia e terminou num debate acirrado sobre a independência do artista para produzir sua própria arte.

Ao falar sobre sua concepção de poeta, Chacal falou sobre a relação da poesia com a música e sobre como o poeta é alguém que é capaz de aliar a palavra ao ritmo ao interpretar a palavra escrita. Para ele, poesia é também performance.

Busco a potência da palavra.
Comecei com o Oswald de Andrade, meu ponto de partida.
O que é ser poeta?
O que seria o poeta? Vou tentar entender junto com vocês.

Em seguida citou Torquato Neto:

Pessoal Intransferível

Escute, meu chapa: um poeta não se faz com versos. É o risco, é estar sempre a perigo sem medo, é inventar o perigo e estar sempre recriando dificuldades pelo menos maiores, é destruir a linguagem e explodir com ela. Nada no bolso e nas mãos. Sabendo : perigoso, divino, maravilhoso.

Poetar é simples, como dois e dois são quatro sei que a vida vale a pena etc. Difícil é não correr com os versos debaixo do braço. Difícil é não cortar o cabelo quando a barra pesa. Difícil, pra quem não é poeta, é não trair a sua poesia, que, pensando bem, não é nada, se você está sempre pronto a temer tudo; menos o ridículo de declamar versinhos sorridentes. E sair por aí, ainda por cima sorridente mestre de cerimônias, “herdeiro” da poesia dos que levaram a coisa até o fim e continuam levando, graças a Deus.

E fique sabendo: quem não se arrisca não pode berrar. Citação: leve um homem e um boi ao matadouro. O que berrar mais na hora do perigo é o homem, nem que seja o boi. Adeusão.

Publicado na coluna “Geléia Geral”, 3ª feira, 14/09/71

Historicamente, a poesia faz parte da tradição oral. Foi apenas quando Guttenberg inventou a imprensa, na Idade Média, que a palavra escrita se difundiu (ainda que, num primeiro momento, apenas para os nobres e religiosos soubessem ler). Além disso, o livro nesse período não era caro como símbolo de status, mas estava no mesmo lugar simbólico que as obras de arte. Nesse período também, o poeta era figura ativa da literatura de cordel.

‘Acho que a poesia perdeu um pouco da sua expressividade com a invenção da imprensa. O poema ganha potência quando é incorporado, quando passa a fazer sentido sozinho. A palavra, quando vem com essa carga poética, traz encanto.’, disse Chacal.

A partir daí, a discussão girou em torno da figura do contador de histórias, não tão comum nos dias de hoje, mas que tem o seu lugar na história, como é o caso dos griots, que ajudam a perpetuar as tradições de seus grupos por meio da tradição oral.

Já no final, Chacal representou um trecho do monólogo ‘Uma história à margem’, que conta a sua história e que está em cartaz terças e quartas, às 21h, na Casa de Cultura Laura Alvim.



Por Bárbara Reis Bolsistas PIBEX/UFRJ e Rute Casoy Assistente Pedagógica UQ.

acontecimento

Quando estou distraído no semáforo
e me pedem esmola
me acontece agradecer

Francisco Alvim

Poética

Academia Brasileira de Letras
de Fôrma
Academia Brasileira de Letras
de Câmbio

Cacaso