There must be a way out of the present crisis

The political and economic crisis we are now experiencing provides an opportunity for truly profound changes, such as political, tributary and agrarian reform. To have the correct focus, is important to first consider some facts.

In the first place, we must see the crisis as part of the great crisis of humanity as a whole, rather than from within, and external to the present course of history. To think of the Brazilian crisis without considering the world crisis is not to think about the Brazilian crisis. We are part of a greater whole. In our case, we cannot escape the attention of the large countries and great corporations, as the Group of 7 considers where the principal assets for the ecological basis of the economy of the future are concentrated: the abundance of drinking water, the great humid jungles, immense biodiversity and 6 billion hectares of farmland. The Imperial strategy does not care that a continental nation in the South Atlantic, such as Brazil, is not aligned with the global interests and to the contrary, seeks an independent path for its own development.

Second, there is a historical background to the current Brazilian crisis that we must never forget. As our main historians confirm, there has never been a form of government that gave adequate attention to the great majorities, the descendants of slaves, indigenous peoples and impoverished populations. They were considered peons, and true nobodies. The State, appropriated from the beginning of our history by the propertied class, was not willing to meet their demands.

Third, we must recognize that, as a result of a painful and bloody history of struggles and of overcoming obstacles of every form, another social base arose as a political power, that now controls the State and all its structures. From an elitist and neoliberal State, it became a republican and social State that, amidst great difficulties and concessions to the dominant national and international forces, managed to give centrality to those who always had been on the margins. The fact that the Government of the Labor Party, PT, has raised 36 million Brazilians out of misery, and has given them access to the fundamental goods of life, is of undeniable historical magnitude. What do the humble of the Earth want? Guaranteed access to the basic goods that let them live. That end is served by the Bolsa Familia, My House My Life, Light for Everyone, and other social and cultural policies, without which the poor would never be able to be lawyers, physicians, engineers, teachers, etc.

Call these measures what you will, but they have been good for the immense majority of the Brazilian people. Is not the right of the State to guarantee the life of its citizens its first ethical mission? Why, for centuries, did not previous governments undertake these initiatives? Was a labor president necessary to accomplish all that? The Labor Party, PT, and its allies performed that historical feat, and not without strong opposition from those who have looked down on «those considered economic zeros», as was shown by Darcy Ribeiro, Capistrano de Abreu, Jose Honorio Rodrigues, Raymundo Faorom and lately, by Luiz Gonzaga de Souza Lima. And still now they continue to look down on them.

Some strata of the privileged upper classes are ashamed of and despise them. Besides the understandable indignation and rage provoked by the scandals of corruption taking place within the government, made hegemonic by the PT, yes, there still is class hatred in this country. These old elites with their means of communication, marked by their reactionary and right wing ideology, supported by the old oligarchy, different from the modern more open and nationalist one, that supports in part the projects of the PT, never accepted a government of popular making. They do their best to make impossible the PT government, and to that end, they use distortions, slander, and lies, with no sense of decency.

Two strategies were designed by the right wing that managed to coalesce, to regain the central power it lost by the ballot, but that have not yet taken shape.

The first is to maintain in society a situation of permanent political crisis to impede the ability of President Dilma to govern. To that end, they organize demonstrations in the streets, making something like a picnic, with casseroles, with full pots, because they never knew what an empty pot means, or, with a gross lack of education, to systematically boo the President at her public appearances.

The second consists of a process of picking at the PT government, slandering it as incompetent and inefficient, and demolishing the leadership of former President Lula with defamations, distortions and outright lies that, when they are unmasked, are not denied. They hope that way to undermine her 2018 candidacy and re-election.

That type of procedure only shows that we still have a very low intensity democracy. The recent acts, provocative and full of a spirit of revenge by the presidents of the two houses, both of the PMDB, confirm what UNB’s sociologist Pedro Demo, wrote in his Introduction to sociology, (Introducción a la sociología, 2002): «Our democracy is the national representation of refined hypocrisy, full of “pretty” laws, but always, at bottom, made by the dominant elite to serve them from beginning to end. The politicians are people who are characterized by making lots of money, working little, making deals, employing their relatives and henchmen, getting rich at the expense of state funds and going into business starting from the top… If we were to equate democracy with social justice, our democracy would be its own negation» (p. 330-333).

We will neither surmount this crisis nor overcome the revanchists and those with a coup d’etat mentality without political, tributary and agrarian reform. Otherwise, our democracy will be powerless and blind.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

The era of the great transformations

We live in the Era of the Great Transformations. There are many, but I will mention just two: the first relating to the economy and the second, to the realm of the conscience.

First, the economy: It began in 1834 when the industrial revolution was consolidated in England. It consists of moving from a market economy to a market society. The market has always existed throughout the history of humanity, but never before has there been a society consisting only of the market. In other words, the only thing that counts is the economy. Everything else must serve the economy.

The market that predominates is ruled by competition rather than cooperation. What is sought is individual or corporative economic benefit, not the common good of the entire society. The cost of attaining this benefit is usually the devastation of nature, and creation of perverse social inequalities.

It is said that the market must be free, and the state is seen as its great obstacle. The mission of the state, in reality, is to order society and the economy through laws and norms, and to coordinate the search for the common good. The Great Transformation presupposes a minimal State, practically limited to issues involving society’s infrastructure, the treasury and security. Everything else belongs to and is regulated by the market.

Everything can be relegated to the market: drinking water, seeds, food and even human organs. This commercialization has penetrated all sectors of society: health, education, sports, the world of the arts and entertainment, and even important types of religions and churches, with their TV and radio programs.

Organizing society only around the economic interests of the market has split humanity from top to bottom: an enormous gulf has been created between the few rich and the many poor. A perverse social injustice predominates.

Simultaneously, a horrible ecological injustice has been created. In the eagerness to accumulate, goods and natural resources have been exploited in a predatory manner, with no limitations and a total lack of respect. The goal is to become ever richer to be able to consume more intensely.

This voracity has surpassed the limits of the Earth herself. The goods and services of the Earth are no longer fully sufficient and renewable. The Earth’s resources are not limitless. That fact makes it difficult if not impossible for the capitalist/productive system to constantly regenerate. That is its crisis.

Given its internal logic, that Transformation, is causing biocide, ecocide and geocide. Life itself is endangered, and the Earth may not want us with her, because we are too destructive.

The second Great Transformation is occurring in the field of consciousness. As the damage to nature that affects the quality of life increases, the awareness also grows that 90% of this damage is due to the irresponsible and irrational attitude of humans, more specifically to the attitude of those economic, political, cultural and media power elites that comprise the great multilateral corporations and have assumed control over the destiny of the world.

It is urgent that we interrupt this trajectory towards the precipice. The first global study of the state of the Earth was done in 1972. It revealed that the Earth is not well. The principal cause is the type of development undertaken by society, that has surpassed the limits of nature and the Earth’s endurance. We must produce, yes, to feed humanity, but in a manner that respects the rhythms of nature and her limits, allowing her to rest and to renew herself. It was called sustainable development, as opposed to just material growth, as measured by the GNP.

In the name of this awareness and its urgency, there arose the responsibility principle (Hans Jonas), the caring principle (Boff and others), the sustainability principle (Brundland Report), the cooperation principle (Heisenberg/Wilson/ Swimme), the prevention/precaution principle (1992 Letter of Rio de Janeiro from the United Nations), the compassion principle (Schoppenhauer/Dalai Lama) and the Earth principle (Lovelock and Evo Morales), where the Earth is understood as a living super organism, always ready to produce life.

The ecological reflection has become complex. It cannot be reduced only to environmental preservation. The totality of the world system is at stake. Thus there has emerged an environmental ecology that has as its end the quality of life; a social ecology that seeks a sustainable mode of living (production, distribution, consumption and disposal of waste); a mental ecology that criticizes prejudices and visions of the world that are hostile to life, and proposes to formulate a new design for civilization, based on the principles and values for a new form of inhabiting the Common Home; and finally, an integral ecology that recognizes that the Earth is part of a universe in evolution, and that we must live in harmony with the Whole, one that is complex and purposeful. From this comes peace.

Then it becomes clear that ecology is an art, a new way of relating to nature and the Earth, more than a technique for administering scarce goods and services.

Everywhere in the world, movements, institutions, organisms, NGOs, and research centers have arisen that propose to care for the Earth, especially for all living beings.

If the awareness of caring, and of our collective responsibility for the Earth and for our civilization, triumph, surely we will still have a future.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU..

What will our children and grandchildren say to us?

Every country, especially those that are experiencing financial crises, such as Brazil in 2015, has a persistent obsession: we have to grow; we must assure the growth of the GNP, namely, the sum of all the wealth produced by the country. This economic growth is fundamentally the production of material goods. It causes a high degree of social inequity (unemployment and reduction of salaries) and a perverse environmental devastation (exhaustion of the ecosystems).

In reality, we should first talk about the kind of development that entails essential non-material elements, principally such subjective and humanistic dimensions as the expansion of liberty, creativity and ways of shaping life itself. Unfortunately we are all hostages of the mirage that is growth. Long ago the balance between growth and the preservation of nature was destroyed, in favor of growth. Consumption is already 40% above the planet’s capacity to replace its goods and services. And the planet is losing her sustainability.

We know now that the Earth is a self regulating living system in which all factors interact (the theory of Gaia) to maintain her integrity. But her self regulation is failing. Hence climate change, extreme events (strong winds, tornadoes, climate deregulation) and the global warming that may surprise us with grave catastrophes.

The Earth is seeking a new equilibrium, raising temperatures between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees centigrade. That would bring on the era of the great devastations, (anthropocene) with rising ocean levels, that will affect more than half of humanity who live on her coasts. Thousands of living organisms would not have enough time to adapt or to mitigate the harmful effects and would vanish. A great part of humanity itself, up to 80% according to some, could no longer subsist on a planet whose physical-chemical base was so profoundly altered.

With certitude environmentalist Washington Novaes affirms: «now it is no longer about caring for the environment, but about not exceeding the limits that could endanger life». There are scientists who claim that we are reaching the point of no-return. It is possible to slow down the oncoming crisis, but not to stop it.

This question is disturbing. In their official speeches, heads of State, businessmen, and, what is worse, principal economists, rarely tackle the limits of the planet and the resulting problems for our civilization. We do not want our children and grandchildren to look to the past, and curse us and our generation because even knowing the dangers, we did little or nothing to avoid the tragedy.

Everyone’s mistake may have been to follow literally the strange advice of Lord Keynes for emerging from the great depression of the 1930’s:

«For at least a century we ought to pretend to ourselves and to everyone else that what is beautiful is dirty and what is dirty is beautiful, because what is dirty is useful and the beautiful is useless. Greed, profiteering, distrust must be our gods because they will guide us towards the end of the tunnel of economic need towards the clarity of the day… After all that will come the return to some of the more secure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue: that greed is a vice, that profiteering is a crime, and that the love of money is detestable» (Economic Possibilities of our Grand-Children). That is how those principally responsible for the crises of 2008, who were never punished, think.

It is urgent that we redefine our goals and seek the best means of attaining them. They no longer can be simply to produce, while destroying nature, and to consume without limit. No one has a solution to this crisis of civilization. But we suspect that it must be guided by the wisdom of nature herself: respect for her rhythms, her capacity to endure, giving centrality not to growth but to sustainability. If our modes of production respected the natural cycles, there surely would be enough for everyone, and we would preserve nature, of which we are part.

We cover the Earth’s wounds with band aids. Mitigation is not a solution. We essentially restrict ourselves to mitigating, with the illusion that we are resolving the urgent issues that are matters of life or death.

Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU..

How the culture of capital is perpetuated

In the previous article –The capitalist culture is contrary to life and happiness– we attempted to show theoretically that the strength of its perpetuation and reproduction lies in emphasizing one aspect of our nature, namely, the urge for self affirmation, for strengthening the ego, so that it neither disappears nor is assimilated by others. But this diminishes and even denies another aspect, equally natural, namely, the integration of the self and the individual into a whole, into the species, of which it is an example.

Is not enough however to end with this type of reflection. Along with this original point there exists another force that guarantees the perpetuation of the capitalist culture. It is the fact that we, the majority of society, internalize the “values” and the basic purpose of capitalism, namely, the constant growth of profit that allows for unlimited consumption of material goods. Those who do not have, want to have, those who have want to have more, and those who have more say: there is never enough. And for the great majority, competition, rather not solidarity, and the supremacy of the strongest prevail above any other value in social relations, especially in business.

The key to sustaining the culture of capital is the culture of consumption, of constantly acquiring new products: a new cell phone with more apps, a more sophisticated computer, a different style of shoes or clothing, more bank credit to facilitate buying and consuming, the uncritical acceptance of product advertisements, etc.

A mentality has been created whereby all of these things are taken as natural. In parties among friends or family and in the restaurants one eats to satiation, while at the same time the news speaks of millions of people who are going hungry. Not many notice this contradiction, because the culture of capital teaches us to care for one’s own self first, and not to worry about others, or about the common good. This, as we have already said many times, has existed for a long time.

But it is not enough to attack the culture of consumption. If the problem is systemic, we have to put forward a different system, one that is anti-capitalist, anti-production, and anti-unlimited lineal growth. To the capitalist credo: «there is no alternative», we must posit a humanist credo: «there is a new alternative».

Alternatives can be seen everywhere, of which I will only mention three as examples: the concept of “living well” of the Andean nations, which has endured for centuries, notwithstanding many attempts to eliminate, subordinate, or assimilate them; but which some sectors of society have recently come to acknowledge and appreciate for their gifts to humanity, including the harmony and equilibrium within all the sectors of the family, within society (community democracy), with nature (the waters, soil, landscapes), and with Pachamama, Mother Earth. The economy of the Andean nations is not guided by accumulation, but by producing only what is enough and decent for everyone and everything.

A second example: eco-socialism is growing daily. It is unrelated to socialism as it previously existed (that in fact was state capitalism), but stems from the ideals of classical socialism, of equality, solidarity, subordination of exchange value to the value of use, together with the ideals of modern ecology. It has been brilliantly presented by Michael Löwy in, What is Eco-Socialism, (Qué es el ecosocialismo, Cortez, 2015) and by others in several countries, including the significant contributions of James O’Connor and Jovel Kovel. They postulate the economy as a function of social needs and the need to protect the life-system and the planet as a whole. The objectives of democratic socialism, according to O’Connor, would be democratic control, social equality and the prevalence of the value of use. Löwy adds that «such a society presupposes collective ownership of the means of production, democratic planning that allows society to define the objectives of production and investments, and a new technological structure of the forces of production» (op.cit. p.45-46). Socialism and ecology share qualitative values, such as cooperation, reducing work time so as to live in a state of freedom to coexist, to create, to pursue culture and spirituality, and to restore an impoverished nature, values which cannot be reduced to market value. This ideal is in the realm of historical possibilities and embraces practices that anticipated it, (such as those of the Andean nations, mentioned above).

A third model of culture I would call, “The Franciscan Way”. Francis of Assisi, updated by Francis of Rome, is more than a name or a religious ideal; it is a project of life, a spirit and a mode of being. The Franciscan Way understands poverty not as the condition of having nothing, but as the capacity for always being able to detach from oneself, so as to give and give. It embraces the simplicity of life, of consumption as shared sobriety; of caring for the destitute, of universal fraternizing with all of nature’s creatures, respected as brothers and sisters, of the joy of living, of being able to dance and sing, even Provencal cantilenae amatoriae, songs of love. In political terms, it would be a socialism of sufficiency and decency rather than of abundance; consequently, a project radically anti-capitalist and anti-accumulation.

Utopias? Yes, but necessary, so as not to drawn into crass materialism. They are utopias that may turn out to be inspiring reference points, after the great systemic socio-ecological crisis that will inevitably come as a reaction of the Earth herself, that can no longer endure such devastation. These cultural values will sustain a new experiment of civilization, finally a more just, spiritual and human one.
Free translation from the Spanish by
Servicios Koinonia, http://www.servicioskoinonia.org.
Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU..