Steady END OF PERU AND THE VICTORY OF DEMOCRACY 
Path Light has been brought back into the political arena as part of a bid to strengthen psychosocial Keiko Fujimori, to tell Julio Cotler. According to experts, including Deputy Minister of Internal Order and manager of the capture of Abimael Guzman, Marco Miyashiro, former Interior Minister Fernando Rospigliosi, the same Cotler, etc.
In my opinion, the Shining Path has been defeated in the military, political and ideological, and follow the same route followed by APRA mid-twentieth century and the leftists of the late nineteenth century: give up forever to revolution modify their conception of a just society. In fact, resigned from the force to take power, forcing it to define their concept of revolution, which in turn forces him to define his conception of a just society. VRAE what appears to be more drug trafficking groups in the service of certain political and not liquidated because it helps them keep up the budget for some leaders of the armed forces.
Shining Path seems to be the last remnant of the Enlightenment in Peru and the consequences of the French Revolution in America's political-military. It is said that the Enlightenment ideas of progress and modernity enter Peru via Argentina and Uruguay (anarchism) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The fact is that decades after the introduction of "enclaves economy" begins to take shape in Peru the formation of groups of workers. As Marxism was introduced in Peru were the first class organizations in the country. As in any institution based on ideas generated is always generated debate about the direction and future of these organizations. Haya de la Torre and José Carlos Mariategui then staged a debate that has consequences today.
Both agreed that socialism was a necessity for the country. What differed was the way to come to power to implement the Revolution and socialism in Peru. Mariategui postulated that the party had to form a Marxist revolutionary party led by working class, while the Toprre Hague believed that the working class at that time was very weak and demands a multi-class party, hence the popular alliance of workers intellectuals and left the helm of the organization to the middle class of which he personally was representative.
Shining Path is the continuation of those early Enlightenment who believed in socialism. Haya de la Torre finally breaks through and founded the APRA after discussion with Mariátegui, but assumes "pure Marxist" and postulated "historical time-space", which was actually their justification for not taking up arms and implement socialism. Haya de la Torre believed in the necessity of founding an organization equivalent to the Russian Communist Party, but adapted to the situation in Peru where the bourgeoisie was scarce. Thus the "historical spacetime Haya de la Torre is inextricably linked to how Haya de la Torre believed socialism could be implemented in Peru.
After this first core Enlightenment Peruvian Socialist split followed a series of divisions up to Sendero Luminoso. The first great division was the Haya and APRA. Then followed by others up to Red Flag, and then Sendero Luminoso. But all are born of the same common stock. APRA recently decided to enter the representative democracy in the 50-60 and never decisively. Only in the 80's when we can see that APRA was renouncing violence as a means of access to power, following the changes in the Soviet Union in the late 70's.
Around the same time we continue the Peruvian left bonded to the UI. The Peruvian left as APRA also realizes that it was difficult to revolution and socialism even after the Soviet disaster, and rotation of China.
Shining Path was the last vestige of socialist enlightenment in Peru: the first turn was given by APRA, after a long and instructive process waiving the revolutionary approach to socialism itself. Then in the 70 United left only renounced the Revolution, not socialism. The Peruvian left just in the process of renunciation of socialism, a process that should last several more years. Shining Path in 1993 resigned from the revolution, at least for the moment, not socialism. Left (IU) can happen just as the APRA and the left: his renunciation of revolution is the first step to a renunciation of socialism and its conception of a just society. Sendero Luminoso is a different case does not make sense for them a waiver to socialism, at least not while Abimael Guzman continued imprisonment. What we do can be expected to modify their conception of a just society, as did the APRA and as we currently are doing now left democratic-representative.
With the entry of Sendero Luminoso in representative democracy ends an era for Peru: the end of socialist enlightenment. For the first time we can say that we are on the verge of the Peruvian nation state and representative democracy, where all enemies have been defeated, not only in military terms but also in the ideological and political. One can not know what will happen in the future, but there are indications that once the influence of socialist enlightenment in Peru begins for our country the construction of its first state to the Peruvian nation, the strengthening of civil society and the beginning of modernity in the country full. Both
APRA, as the democratic left and as the Shining Path are born of a common core: the socialist enlightenment in Peru. At the end of this century ended. What is now "reborn" is advertising for Fujimori's candidacy. GONE WITH TERRORISM capitulation of Abimael GUZMÁN.Lo remains is to finish LIVING WITH TERRORISM. this is a task for the parties but especially civil society.
noise by a protest march walkers, the seizure of criminal subversive material in Santa Monica, etc. appear to be part of a psychosocial some stakeholders to raise Keiko Fujimori's candidacy, and therefore has no relevance in the progress of the nation. Neither comes from reviewing the seized USB assumptions Maritza Garrido Lecca: his approach to Ollanta Humala, the reactivation of walkers bases, their alliance (the SL) with the FARC and Patria Roja, talks with nationalist and leftist leaders like Father Arana, etc. We know all that can bring about USB in the hands of Montesinos that ultimately would serve as advisor to the APRA government.
The defeat of terrorism in Peru by the action of the Armed Forces and the Peruvian society should be continued with defeat OF LIVING OF TERRORISM. And that is a pending task of citizenship and civil society organizations. When we finish with the recent terrorist living we can say we have freed ourselves from terrorism and its allies. Urge a law that punishes both the advocacy of violence as those who assembled to raise psychosocial terrorism in the mass media to raise some cancidatura (as in this case is to favor Keiko Fujimori). Both ailments have similar consequences and the punishment should be the same. The state has every right to defend itself against its enemies.
Best Regards, Edson
Baldeón
Deciphering the vote "Humala" 
With a couple of friends who have also studied sociology, we visited three Vitarte Human Settlements, Villa El Salvador and Comas. In fact one of our yoke (college friends) is doing his masters thesis on the popular imagination against Ollanta proposal. And we asked for support.
With some surprise we find, among other things, that not only perceived hatred, resentment, vengeance, and generally "bad vibes" between Ollanta voters but also find something that analysts are not seeing, or if you are seeing do not tell, or if you say the media did not broadcast. Indeed, mixed rage against a political system, and against a "political class" are positive desires, hope, contained, and an illusion hidden by project Humala.
People who vote for Humala told us of a hidden desire that has nothing to do with the destruction and hatred, but with the hope that his miserable situation is reversed, and that better days are open for them too.
seems to me natural and healthy that marginalized people feel hatred against politics and politicians. Because the opposite is insane. It is sickening that people who have been marginalized and excluded defend the system that has prostrated. The healthy thing is that marginalized people reject the system that marginalizes them. I do not think it is indisputable that the attitude of people in this regard. On the contrary, it seems so normal and healthy.
rant I smile when some people "ignorant", "thoughtless" and so on. What do you want, the marginalized defend the system that marginalizes them? What do, what means of communication that transmit programs and violence controversial bulk and then ask him to require people to give one vote "reflective", "smart", etc..? Excuse me but that's a tall order. The right has never understood the common people, that's why people hate the right and the right despises humble people. The right is necessary for the progress of a country, but we have a right selfish, racist and incompetent to understand people. They should learn a little of the Chilean right and the English.
Les said that the people expressed in the vote for Humala, not only resentment and revenge but also, a hope for change that benefits them, is a hope for a kind of change happens to take him out of misery in which they are prostrate. There in the vote to Humala a hidden desire for a better future than what they have today. This we saw in these days of field work I was surprised not by what we saw but by the consequences this might have.
just now I could understand the hard vote for the candidacy of former military. Just could understand why even though he is accused of murderer (by accusations of My Mother) cynical (collect rich in the system while ranting on him), not being prepared (for some), if part of a family almost bordering on insanity, and so on., accuse him of everything, but people still clinging to Ollanta Humala. Yesterday, I realized that not only marginalized people express anger in his vote but also hope. A hidden hope. Now, that hope becomes reality or betrayed that's another thing. People do not have a magic ball to see if your wishes will comply, they do know is that with the other candidates have more of the same. Whether true or not, the latter would be the feeling in the people sector Humala.
This is then either seems to be the former military links with the underclass: resentment and anger while excitement and hope. That also happened with the phenomenon may Fujimori in 1990, I was very minor at that time and I know the truth, but I can assume that it was. So Rafael Rey analysis, and advice given to Lourdes, to capitalize on anger against the government of Toledo, it seems a good idea, except that it restricts the government rabies Toledo while the entire system Humala, a matter of strategy that part of his political position and its political position in the ideological spectrum. Fallen king is no rot. It
"measure" the intensity of this anger and this hope, the factors that feed it, etc., That Humala's opponents can counter it. Exactly the same should do to advance Humala.
I still have people we visit, also checked an amazing phenomenon that has to do with the weakness and impotence of the left today: the people have suffered a kind of castration, to question their misery. And this thing strange I link directly to the cultural hegemony of neoliberalism. The neoliberal discourse allows people to speak directly and openly about their status as poor, marginalized or excluded. The neoliberal discourse that cultural hegemony is to shame people to talk about their poverty and exclusion. And this embarrassment caused to function as a kind of "self-gag. A speech that rewards people "successful" and punishable by humiliation to the "losers" and directs his post by the mass media like TV and newspapers do that poor people have believed as a neoliberal discourse . And so the poor find it difficult talk, including himself about his unfortunate socioeconomic status. Because it would accept that they are losers and that is insulting in the context of neoliberal culture as currently hegemonizes our society. Complaints are dissolved by the media "on air" and not allowing it to become part of the political agenda. In this context is that the unemployed get them to sell anything as "named" Sales Manager "and other cheap, sentimental things like that. This communication work in Peruvian society. People do not communicate, does not communicate his feelings as the media have told them that's losers. And this phenomenon link it with the weakness and impotence of the left today.
leftist discourse can not permeate people while neoliberal hegemony to dominate the scene. Now I understand what I thought was irrational. Before asking me how is that poor people do not give ball left left knowing that supposedly represent their interests.
But, despite that people see irrational or been compelled to see how irrational leftist discourse, at the same time has the ability to reject neoliberalism "irrationally." Poor people believe in because you better believe Humala not believe their situation will change. Because, think-if Humala wins, maybe my situation will improve, even if there is the possibility. Better than nothing. Humala Without that possibility does not exist or is much smaller. It seems that our brains are adapted to think in a rational irrationality larger, or vice versa. And something, I think, is about religion in this way of thinking so elastic. But that is another matter.
is a success of Humala having failed to emphasize in his address poverty, but point to the angry people. Emphasize not poverty but inequality. Not to forget about poverty, but the emphasis is elsewhere: in retaliation. This makes me suspect that there are people behind that advice very sociologically.
What they call "emotional vote" seems to actually be an understatement. The poor have had to adapt to the times and transform the discourse of the left in a speech in protest at being compelled to talk about their troubles in a context of neoliberal hegemony. And that's what analysts call 'emotional voting. " I disagree with that terminology. Well, calling him "emotional vote" what they do is devalue the vote of the marginalized, is to place a vote of the marginalized outside the bounds of rationality. The "emotion" is different from "reason", and analysts see no rracionales as those who vote for the former soldier called his score "emotional vote" and covering up what they really mean: "votes irrational." This is also a sign of contempt concealed that some analysts have towards marginalized people. Sociologically
not good to call "emotional vote" to those who vote in protest. I think that a sociologist should look for the rationality of voting and that has to reject that term. We must find the rationality of the vote for Humala. They will know how to fight and Humala know how to advance and solidify their votes. Everyone wins, but if we call "emotional vote" everyone loses, because it works in the dark. Best Regards Edson
Baldeón
@ All rights reserved
Political leadership promise and as farce: Why policy is anthropomorphic? On the out siders
Why politics is anthropomorphic? Is the question that tried to answer in this post. I tried to summarize the reasons for the policy anthropomorphism in 4 factors.
1 º Identification of the actions of political virtues (or vices) to the politician himself. Politics is deliberation, decision and action. The deliberate policy, decided and done and then discuss, decide and transmit values \u200b\u200bthat can be weighed by the membership of his party or the public. For example, a few weeks ago Congressman Víctor Andrés Popular Action Garcia Belaunde dismissed as "unworthy" to APRA for obstructing congressional election of members of the Constitutional Court. Congress President demanded the withdrawal of those words. García Belaunde not retired and reaffirmed it. A portion of the public supports the statement by the Popular Action congressman, and Rep. advances its claim to be the next President of the Congress. The actions of politicians convey values. What he does what he says is what the political citizens. If she does or says political transmits sincerity, opportunism and cynicism that's part of the subjectivity of the public.
The values \u200b\u200bof a good politician or a political ideal is part of the political culture of the company concerned, and are perceived in the actions and decisions of politicians. If a politician does things that are perceived as intelligent, courageous or honest politician then be associated with these virtues, and we have a politician perceived as intelligent, fearless and honest. This is one of the factors in the anthropomorphizing of politics: the identification of the actions of political virtues (or vices) to the politician himself.
2 The policy and seeking the common good. The second factor to the anthropomorphizing of the policy would to do with politics as a way to strive for the common good. The government is related to the search for the common good of society and to achieve the common good requires that politicians are related to the values \u200b\u200bthat enable good governance: the courage, intelligence, honesty, frugality, work, the gift of command, the charisma, simplicity, where the word, courage, gallantry, etc.. These values \u200b\u200bare perceived as positive because they make possible the preservation of life, of freedom, equity, justice.
implicit rationing is as follows: a righteous person will make things fair, a make things honest man honest, intelligent woman will do things intelligent. And all these virtues are good for good governance. 3 º
political leadership in a context of uncertainty. Political leadership means ability of a person to be custodian of the political confidence of a sector of the population. Its net indicator is their intention to vote for the highest office in their jurisdiction.
happens in countries such as Peru's political candidates for public office through games. Are the parties who nominate candidates. Politicians alone can not run if it is presented and endorsed by a party.
But the complexity of the situations that have generated a constant uncertainty and we need many decisions that can not be agreed by the parties of the politicians. Are the politicians themselves who have to decide once in government, not parties. This makes it necessary that the political virtues which ensure that good governance including the need that is not hamstrung by a bureaucratic entity and parties. 4 º Leadership
promise and leadership as a farce. Leadership is always a promise. A future promise of incentives on those who support them. And a promise is always referred to the future. So a leader must have personal qualities that make it credible that implicitly promises. All who join a leader expect the realization of that promise and that promise is better if it can be expressed publicly highlighted, developed with input from many, and there is a context and resources (all types) sufficient to realize such promise.
A real leadership expands their personal goals and goal-partisan national goals even when the personal project needs to be confused with the party and the country, synergistically. A scale that can attract people that are committed to that leadership. And those people are the strength that you need that leadership to the activities of the construction of a project. Intelligence, wisdom, strength, virility, courage, charisma, expression ... and a gift of himself favored by God, enable strong leadership. All leadership, however, development is always a promise and a farce. A promise and a farce combined cleverly strung together as a watermark in a specific context in which it feeds.
Leadership is a farce as long as the person standing in a particular context by force is influenced by a number of reasons, motives, circumstances, and these are always conflicting in a complex society like the present. And yet, the politician is obliged to keep a sufficient policy coherence to ensure their actions in government. But it happens that social contradictions are also expressed in personal contradictions, opinion, political position. And except for some great ideas politician has enough space to accommodate the views of the people either as a candidate either as a government. In fact a person with fixed or fully coherent ideas is a myth. When someone says "I say what I think" not telling the truth, because what you think not only always be much more than what you say but will not always be consistent about thoughts on others. In reality, the complexity of social life is reflected in contradictions almost all debatable issues. Except for some dogmas, everything else has room for heterodoxy, the staging and the use language. A person who "says what he thinks is a myth.
And yet the politician has to be consistent, something very, very difficult and not much memory do you need to find political contradictions in the most virtuous of national policy. Between before and now. Not only honesty but a good memory and intelligence can aquiline, with effort, make it appear as a coherent policy. That is why political leadership will always be a promise as both a farce. Greetings
Edson Baldeón
@ All rights reserved
About
siders out in the previous said article is not the fact that a candidate is out siders, but some features out siders and out siders the position assumed by the candidate in Peru today than it brings people together. To further establish the differences, defining what I believe is an out siders, features stand out siders and out siders.
A siders out in strict political leadership is formed on the outside and against the political system. Features
out siders would be the candidate's personal characteristics with which to identify those who feel marginalized and / or excluded from the political system, basically its racial, social or gender.
For "stand out sider "basically understand the attitude of the candidate for appearing in the eyes of the electorate as different from the leadership of the establishment.
That respect for differences. With respect to what is shared, common to the three definitions is that they are perceived by the electorate as factors inclusive.
One out siders to be necessarily have to have an inclusive discourse forged apart from outside and against the political system. Why? Because not all coming from outside the out siders consider it but only successful candidates, namely those coming from outside manage to get inside the political system, ie to achieve electoral success. In this sense, the out siders only refers to the way leadership entered the political system. And you have to enter or win a presidential election or to achieve a considerable bank (with which hypothetically can articulate an opposition to the government). Therefore, Humberto Lay would not be an out siders having failed to either condition. Instead, Ollanta Humala itself can be considered as an out siders, at least during the campaign in 2006 and from the results obtained in 2006. But as this category refers only to how to enter the political system does not say anything about evaluation as a politician after the elections of that year.
As an out siders come from outside the system has a political message to voters who feel marginalized or excluded by the system. So his message is inclusive. Now, when a society has a political system that is a true factory out siders like Peru means that the political process does not seem to solve the structural problems of our society. Or at least not for a relative majority of citizens for what they believe to improve the state of affairs would be useful to change the policy and / or politicians. Faced with this situation, the political system does not remain with folded arms, but implement electoral strategies that uncheck the establishment of which they are part, made a speech against the political-economic system (remember the promise of Alan Garcia on that would lower the cost of electricity, water, telephone, etc, and the elimination of services? ) and even take an outward physical appearance so that voters try to approach (which includes a Lourdes Flores folk dress, eating chicken and dancing cumbia, etc.). This is what I call "stand out siders." For it is not an out siders but whose electoral strategy is the removal of strut exclusive establishment (at least until the completion of elections) appealing to the symbolic-excluded. The question that these politicians are trying to answer is how we reach out to voters and win their votes in a context where most feel marginalized?
But regardless of the electoral strategy are factors that remain part of the physical appearance (physiological) can be enhanced candidate for office. Here's racial, gender, socioeconomic background of the candidate, and so on. Everything that serves to reach out to the marginalized, everything that contributes to an inclusive message is good. Copied as written above "racial traits can also function as a means of inclusion as in the case of the woman, not just color of the skin, but a different sensitivity has been obtained by sedimentation of discrimination as we are. Basically to be racially different from the blank, which has been the victim of power, and therefore would be in readiness to help the weak. That is the implicit assumption and hence comes the promise, and is a beautiful promise of inclusion. " Out sider features relate primarily to the physiological characteristics of the candidates who come to the message of inclusión.El messenger is the message (received). Which is not to say that once in power to implement a policy that reduces feelings of marginalization of the majority, or even increase it.
It said what they share, usually between the three definitions (out siders, pose out siders out siders and traits) is that they are perceived by the electorate as factors inclusive.
Now, what does the campaign as teaching at the out siders? That talk in the next article.
Best Regards, Edson
Baldeón
@ All rights reserved
