Luciano Gallino, how would you rate the policies followed by those who have public responsibilities (industrialists, economists, policy makers) in order to overcome the crisis? Policies that actually boil down to raise production and consumption, GDP growth, short growth ... A line that no one questions.
post-crisis interventions are the result of a process of economic restructuring started with Reagan and Thatcher in the early 80's, which also contributed to European governments, led by socialist property after the crisis , are now trying to remedy this with typical methods neoliberal. But you have to make some distinction. The United States, prime mover of financial capitalism, which started the crisis, are making a policy a bit 'more liberal Europe' s: saving the banks, but also to reduce unemployment with strong responses from the stimulus, and to allocate tens of billions a policy label. With all its limitations, it is still the first sign of life policy in respect of finance. While the EU, faithful to the Lisbon strategy, it's going in the opposite direction.
What she tells me confirming the total disregard of the political world against the global ecological crisis, and that the global economic recovery can only worsen. How do you rate this?
I think it is very dangerous. It 's like being on a plane that is going straight into a mountain and cabin there is no ...
Recently, the Global Footprint Network has announced that it has already consumed the amount of nature that they can use this year without further unbalancing the ecosystem. And the date is earlier every year ... But no one pays attention: continuing to rely on growth, forgetting that (apart from disaster) for growth may be lacking the raw material ...
He said most of her. I finished writing a book on the crisis as a crisis of civilization, in which among other memories that the ecological footprint of the global economy now occupies a three-point planet. If the South had to produce like the West, in a few years of Earths it would take two. The main contractors are faith and neoliberal economic practices that have followed. The neo-liberal economic doctrines speak of forests, oceans, water, land, etc.. in one aspect: it is used. One destroys one thousand square kilometers of rainforests in Indonesia or Brazil and considered a work of value, something that seemed not to serve anything becomes a building material. This economic theory is quite irrational because it does not calculate the expense of the destruction services that forest - or the swamp, quell'agro, that river - made: an annual value that exceeds an average of two or three times the revenue of the so-called exploitation. The difference is that those services that have disappeared were lasting forever, while the valuation is made once.
But this behavior does not concern the nature of capital?
capital without rules and controls. But there were periods in which capital was reasonably regulated.
Perhaps because, as Wallerstein says, there were still areas to escape ... The world was not man-made, as now used.
This is no doubt. Today, outside of the capitalist world, there is no space. But there are also other geopolitical factors to consider. Between 1945 and 1980, capitalism was somehow regulated. In several European countries working hours were reduced: in France it came to leave for five weeks. For many reasons. Last but not least the presence of a large shadow in the east, which prompted entrepreneurs, bankers, politicians, to move with caution. When you're done, hath been had the counter-offensive aimed at cutting social achievements have occurred between 60 and 80. And all the legislation was amended so as to give maximum space to financial capitalism.
According to a policy totally identified with the neoliberal economy ...
course, the winning bid. The neo-liberal policy is in its way a totalitarian politics, even with fideistic connotations: the state must be reduced to a minimum. Pathways to the global ecological crisis have been flattened by enforcing legislation from a policy that considers a priority the economy. We must regain the ability to impose the policy to some extent the economy, especially in finance. Of course, with enormous difficulties: this fact has been put up since the late '40s.
environment even when the problem did not arise ...
Yes, then the conquest of the domination of the policy is put in very clear terms. Globalisation has been one of the tools to build an ideological and political domination does not unless statement. And so far lacked the counter. Above all it is missing critical thinking.
And in all that the problem has been completely removed ...
I would not say that was removed. The neo-liberal economists, the main architects of the disaster, in reality they were and are very well aware. Only that, while it lasts, we see opportunity for profit.
The proliferation of these disasters, these people should be alarmed ...
Why should they be alarmed ... What, they think, will happen to the great-grandchildren ...
's already happening to them. With the Gulf of Mexico, for example.
The fact is that trying to convince them it is useless, because their mindset, the way they calculate costs and benefits, is structured in that direction.
She confirms that the economy is a completely self-referential, that ignores the reality ...
Have patience, expect something different from these people is irrational for us. They are the builders of this world, from their point of view is fine. Someone like Warren Buffet, the first or the second richest man in the world, some years ago wrote a letter to its shareholders in which he said: "I do not really know if there is such thing as class struggle, but if there is clear we are the winners. " How do you convince ... The problem is that someone should move to the left, and only 1 or 2 percent.
fact. Would not it time for the Left to realize that labor exploitation, unemployment, job insecurity, inadequate wages, impossible schedules are an integral part of this reality? Even Marx said that production is only production for capital. And Napoleon claimed that the life of capital is essentially the growth of himself ... Are central questions today than yesterday. The left should not see the unsustainability of this situation? At the bottom were born to beat capitalism, then chose the reformism. Perhaps today should realize that reform is no longer needed ... It would be a good time ....
Yes, but a good time began almost thirty years ago ...
I agree, and did not start ... But it is still the case?
If you ask me a diagnosis, I say that the left (except perhaps a minor part of the left-left) than that happened in the world have so far little understood. Why is there no in-depth analysis of the globalization process, which at the same time is a political, economic and technological. Globalization in certain respects it was a mammoth project of labor policies, designed to bring the production as much as possible not only in countries where labor costs less, but there are fewer rights, the environment problem almost does not exist, unions are only on paper or so. Depth analysis at the level of the party, we have not seen. They are much more liberal on some American think tank ...
only that nobody, not even known authors, think that we should, or might be, to overcome capitalism. For example, Stiglitz and Krugman: criticize the enormous inequalities ... terrible conditions of some countries 'developing' ... They want fixes to individual problems. But no one seems to assume that capitalism can have an end.
Look, if I stand in front of a green button and a red, and I say "Press the green button and capitalism disappears", I immediately press (perhaps after asking what it replaces) . However, I think, considering the forces at work and the overwhelming victory of neoliberalism - the most that can realistically hope for now is a fairly regulated capitalism. The relationship today is such that it is already a huge ambition groped in a practical way to regulate capitalism. Starting from the political arena, because that is where we must intervene.
But assuming its full extent in the ecological imbalance would not be possible to propose a more radical discourse? It 's a chance to think?
It 's a chance because there are social forces. Why the world proletariat (2 billion three and a half-billion people) in the collection can also be considered a "class in itself". But there is a 'great distance to be bridged in order to become "a class by itself." It 'hard to help bridge this gap with people who live on less than $ 2 a day ... How do you talk about environmental problems to a woman in Haiti who see their children die of hunger?
But now in Pakistan there are a million and half people on the run from 'flood ... Of the poor who suffer the environmental problem on their skin. It is the poor who are serving the imbalance ecosystem ... It is precisely this that the left could work?
Yes, just find where this left. It should work, work hard, do a thorough analysis, to bring critical thinking ... We have given up almost everyone. But it is true that the issue of inequality is tragically linked to the environment. Even if those who do not know what to eat tonight, the environment is difficult to talk.
Perhaps it would be necessary for a moment put aside the historical problems of left - labor, wage, home ... - To deal with this aporia of unlimited growth in production in a world that is not unlimited. ... In this key all the traditional policies could be reviewed ...
with me She breaks through a door does not open, but a gate. However, one must consider that we are faced with political formations that have dramatically lost their battle. On the other hand I fear the exhortation is not enough, nor the harshest critic. Their welfare was formed in that way and you can not cut the head of the person to change it. We must find a way to show other things, to teach other things. But this lack think tanks, politicians lack. For example, one of the great political issues of which you speak is that the huge inequalities in the world have been an important factor is the financial crisis of the industrial crisis, and not least of the same ecological crisis. The fight against inequality is the first to fight if you want someone to follow us even in the field of environmental policy.
Perhaps we need to consider what seems to me a deeper fault: that is the fact that consumerism, the identification with the possession of objects ... and therefore the competitiveness, the race to income, are due to a serious mental corruption, involving petty corruption even then ...
There is no doubt. I think the last book by Benjamin Barber "Consumed", which examines the infantilization of consumers, even the rimbecillimento, young people especially but also adults. But I would not talk of corruption or distortion, I would use terms such as social, as Erich Fromm said, indicating a very different character and maybe the opposite of what we want.
E However, the awareness of a crisis not only eco no longer bearable, is spreading, especially among young people ... And 'people, perhaps harshly criticized by refraining from voting, does not refer to the left ... This would not be a base from which to start?
I am skeptical about such positions, however, supported by more than one author. I appear in a revival of hope in the small revolutionary party that stands in its own right. Certainly exists between a number of people's awareness of ecological risk, but not enough. That this awareness should come in politics, politics will face ... and for this we will need forces, ci vogliono dei voti, dei Parliamentarians ... My stop che siamo ancora da questi traguardi lontani. CHICKEN LUCIANO
0 comments:
Post a Comment