This is my new article published by the Observatory on International Stability and Conflict (OISC). In this piece I analyse the relationship between corporate media and two emerging social movements, the Occupy Wall Street and the the Spanish 15M. Please, feel free to comment and post your views.
There’s something about the mainstream media coverage of the Occupy Wall Street Movement that I find somewhat bizarre and pathetic: its attempt to classify, isolate, abstract from reality, label, define, only to denigrate, ridicule, mock, disempower, obliterate with an array of cliché rhetorical strategies. One year after its birth in Zuccotti Park, the media says the Occupy movement is declining, that it has lost its impetus….still so obsessed with the visual. What if Occupy values have been internalised by an important part of the population who does not necessarily have to be physically present in the square? To me, the mental battle is as important as the battle for public space. To occupy minds is as important as to occupy squares. And here’s why I think the media is pathetically behind in the race for credible and reliable information although one might question whether the adjectives “credible” and “reliable” can…
View original post 1,542 more words
Yes, we are the (guinea) PIGS: IMF’s economic experiments in former Yugoslavia and Spain.
September the 11th saw one of the most massive demonstrations for independence ever in the streets of Barcelona. The economic crisis/fraud and the subsequent austerity policies imposed in Spain by the IMF and the European Central Bank have convinced many Catalans that independence from Spain is the only way out, once and for all. In the heat of this discussion taking place at the moment in Spain, the perception among many Spaniards is that they don’t want to see Spain become another “Yugoslavia”. Accurate or not, the problem with this assertion is that it takes into account only the ethnic factor of the Balkan’s war but little is mentioned of the role of IMF austerity packages in the war, the same IMF that is imposing austerity measures in Spain, the same austerity measures imposed in Yugoslavia prior to the war!. It is not my intention to argue that Catalans might provoke a bloodbath in Spain if persisting in their legitimate path for independence, ignoring the larger economic and political picture. Rather, I’d like to highlight the irresponsibility of IMF’s policies when bringing countries to the point of economic desperation. The Catalan move for independence is more than a merely ethnic or cultural caprice as many Spaniards believe and argue but Catalans need to understand as well that a hypothetical independence will not occur in a political and economic vacuum; many geo-strategic interests are at stake here.
Experimenting with human lives: the IMF’s shock therapies in former Yugoslavia and Spain.
At a first glance, comparing the ethnic war in the Balkans and the current situation in Spain might sound exaggerated and out of place to some readers. Are there really any bases for comparison? Is the author trying to suggest a similar violent outcome to the social and economic tensions created in Spain that the packages of structural adjustment are exacerbating? It’s certainly obvious that the present economic crisis in Spain and the Balkan’s war bear little resemblance except for the fact that both Yugoslavia and Spain are multicultural mosaics embracing a number of different national and cultural sensibilities held together by an authority, namely, King Juan Carlos de Borbon in Spain (who succeeded the iron fist of dictator Francisco Franco) and Mariscal Tito in ex-Yugoslavia. Spain and ex-Yugoslavia do not even share the same religious diversity as Spain is mostly and overwhelmingly a Catholic country whereas ex-Yugoslavia had (and still has) three main religions, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Muslim. In terms of geography and history, it is clear that, apparently, neither Spain nor ex-Yugoslavia share much in common. Perhaps the linguistic diversity of both countries might live up to this comparison as Spain is as multilingual (Catalan, Basque and Galician are official languages in Spain) as ex-Yugoslavia, where Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are now official national languages. So, what is the point in writing a piece that compares two countries (one of which does not exist anymore as such) that do not share much historically, economically and culturally except for the fact that both are (or have been, in the case of ex-Yugoslavia) multilingual and multicultural nations united by a strong uniting force? Certainly, and as some members of the Clinton administration advised in the roaring 90’s, “it’s the economy, stupid!”. But why the economy? We must move beyond the focus of the Western press, which portrayed the ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia during the 90’s as the consequence of merely aggressive nationalism, occluding the important role of the IMF in breaking up the Yugoslav federation. This is the same IMF that will probably “rescue” Spain with a credit of 100.000 million euros only to save its bankrupt banks, or so the Spanish government says….
The intervention of the IMF in former Yugoslavia can be seen as part of a general geostrategic plan to establish neoliberalism as the hegemonic economic system in the world, which began to really take shape after the fall of the Berlin Wall and of Communism at the end of the 80’s. Yugoslavia played a crucial role in this global strategy from the moment that Mariscal Tito promised love to the Soviet Union while winking an eye to the US investment in the 50’s. Perhaps it was in this ambivalence where the IMF found a small crevice to penetrate the country after the 70’s economic crisis, imposing a package of structural adjustment to reconfigure the country’s institutions towards a market-oriented economy. Until that moment, the economy of ex-Yugoslavia had experienced a rapid agricultural and industrial growth between 1957 and 1960, being one of the fastest growing economies in the world and it continued well into 70’s despite the economic crisis:
“Multiethnic, socialist Yugoslavia was once a regional industrial power and economic success. In the two decades before 1980, annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaged 6.1 percent, medical care was free, the rate of literacy was 91 percent, and life expectancy was 72 years. But after a decade of Western economic ministrations and a decade of disintegration, war, boycott, and embargo, the economies of the former Yugoslavia were prostrate, their industrial sectors dismantled”.
But this impressive economic success was accompanied as well by a remarkable social success. Until the implementation of the first IMF package of structural adjustment measures in early 80’s, ex-Yugoslavia enjoyed free medical care, a literacy rate above 91% and a life expectancy of 72 years. The first phase of IMF experimentation in Europe was about to be implemented. Objective?. The weakening of the Iron Curtain to grant capitalism a spacious highway into communist territory. And of course, nothing is more abhorring for a neoliberal monk than a territory full of social obstacles to the Almighty (and voracious) God of economic profit where wages are economically competitive in the international market. The IMF package of structural adjustment imposed on former Yugoslavia during the 80’s must sound strangely familiar to Spanish: wage freeze (in Spain wages of public sector workers have been literally slashed), the dismantling of the industrial sector, sharp cuts in public spending, and the dismantling of the welfare state, all this only to repay international creditors of the IMF. But what will probably startle the Spanish reader is to know that these austerity measures were pivotal in the exacerbation of secessionist movement and the terrible ethnic strife that ensued such economic reforms. Like Spain, former Yugoslavia was formed by a number of republics (autonomous communities in Spain) with an industrialised north in Croatia and Slovenia (Catalonia and the Basque Country in Spain), and a mostly agricultural south in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia (Andalucía, Murcia, Extremadura and Castilla la Mancha in Spain). Interestingly, tensions between northern industrial-oriented republics and southern agriculturally-oriented ones built up in Yugoslavia as its IMF controlled central bank imposed severe lending restrictions which basically led the economy of the federation to a halt. Such was the outcome of the IMF’s designed shock therapy that it became impossible for Belgrade to obtain state revenues for the republics as most of the budget was redirected to the repayment of the debt contracted with the IMF. Little by little, the republics were left on their own to compete for the scarce remaining resources, when the budget supplies that had connected financially Belgrade to the republics were severed. The rest is tragic history in the Balkans, as Jude Wanniski clearly points out in a memo to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:
“Ordinary people turned into ethnic monsters only after all their options for economic life were destroyed. Ethnic cleansing came arrived only after shock therapy had done its work”.
So, the IMF had a crucial role in the breaking up of the Yugoslavian federation through the imposition of drastic structural adjustment reforms that ended up sparking social discontent and breeding ethnic hatred, as the recently declassified Wikileaks documents state: “Do not forget, the IMF austerity measures imposed on Yugoslavia were in part to blame for the start of the war there. We need to be aware of any economically motivated social discontent”. Like former Yugoslavia, Spain enjoyed a decent welfare state built after the death of Franco. In 1982, the election of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) initiated a period of soft neoliberal policies and openness to multinationals, combined with a moderate increase in public spending (25% of GDP, slightly below the European average of 28.5% and well below Finland’s public spending of up to 35% in the mid 80’s), particularly in public education and public health, a mini welfare state. After almost a decade of increasing neoliberalisation and inequality and an economic bubble caused by the passing of the “Ley del Suelo” or “Building Land Law” in 1998 (implemented by former right-wing Spanish president Jose Maria Aznar), which basically eliminated all restrictions to house building, the right to have a house became a luxury in the hands of speculators. Mortgages were issued at 35 or 40 years and prices kept going up as almost everybody was entitled to buy a house. But when prices could not rise any longer and therefore house development ceased to be a lucrative business, speculators moved their money elsewhere and after that real state agencies could not return the money to the banks and banks were not issuing any more credit to buyers. The construction bubble exploded leaving aside a desolate landscape raided by the greed of rampant corruption. The consequences of this crisis/fraud in Spain have been disastrous as most of the economic tissue of the nation centred almost exclusively on the construction sector: overnight, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, architects found it very hard to find jobs whilst a small elite of corrupt politicians had grabbed indecently enormous benefits from EU funds channelled through the state. A staggering 25% unemployment (50% of which corresponds to youth between 18 and 25 years old) bleeds a country where the old and new oligarchy of the right wing PP feels at ease in an old new scenario of inequality very similar to the pre-republican era of the beginning of the 19th and mostly 20th centuries (except the oasis of the 2nd Republic).
At this point, the economic and political situation does not differ much from that in former Yugoslavia before its dismantling: a deep economic crisis/fraud, Spain on its knees, the application of shock therapy via debt and structural adjustment programs, the dismantling of the welfare state and the disintegration of the nation? Again, the IMF’s “rescue” of former Yugoslavia after the crisis of the 70’s should resonate powerfully here. In very little time, Spain woke up from the dream of economic buoyancy into the nightmare of the IMF’s shock therapy. It has been a rude awakening for many Spaniards after years of relative social cohesion and moderate welfare. As we have seen in countless other countries and especially in former Yugoslavia, the recipe of the IMF to bring the “dead” back to life is an economic program of brutal austerity, the slashing of public sector-funded programs and the massive privatisation of public services. Rather, these austerity measures will disfigure the entire thousand years-old socio-cultural and economic tissue of a nation, and will turn Spain into an eternal slave of debt.
After the dismantling of the welfare state, the next step is the dismantling of the political tissue of the country, as in former Yugoslavia. In the context of the austerity measures and structural adjustment program imposed on Spain by the Troika for the last three months, the chief of this economic institution recently “suggested” the Spanish government to apply the stick (instead of the carrot) with the regions that incur into violation of the “Ley de Estabilidad Presupuestaria” (Law of Budget Stability). This new law basically establishes 11 points aimed at disciplining the public spending of both public administrations and regions through a spending limit. In a meeting recently held in Madrid, the representatives of the Andalusian government (the southern and poorer region in Spain governed by the Socialist Party) found the impositions utterly unacceptable as their fulfilment would imply the closing down of hospitals and schools if such spending limits are to be met. The reaction of the Catalan government was also of utter rejection and Andreu Mas-Colell (the Catalan finance councillor) refused to attend the meeting. If the government does not pull back on these severe restrictions (and it will certainly not pull back), nationalist and separatist sentiment will inflame all the regions, but especially those regions with a distinctive historical and cultural background (Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, and even Andalucía, where a feeble separatist sentiment still survives). I am witness myself to this increasing passion for secession in those regions where the historical perception of Spain as the source of all problems (and the other way round) is aggrandizing day by day. As I read the main online Catalan newspapers I cannot help thinking that for an increasing number of Catalans, this economic crisis and the Law of Budget Stability is not only a historical opportunity to once and for all fulfil their economic and cultural aspirations, but also a seemingly rational and logical solution to finish what is strongly perceived in Catalonia as the Spanish plundering of its economic budget. And if Catalonia pulls towards independence the chances are the Basque Country (and possibly many other regions) will follow suit as the Spanish central government severs the economic arteries that connect centre and periphery, and peripheral regions see themselves forced to live off their now scarce resources.
In this possible scenario, I foresee the centrifugal force of each autonomous region demanding their own fair share of independence not only against the Spanish central government but also against other autonomous regions. In this way, the Spanish political architecture on which its social and political cohesion would begin to crumble as the unifying force of the nation, the Spanish Crown, loses its legitimacy to the eyes of Spanish and Catalan citizens: how are they supposed to understand the dismantling of the welfare state (with all its terrible consequences) and the acceptance of “sacrifices” to overcome the economic crisis/fraud while the Spanish Royal family costs around pounds a year and the church does not pay taxes? Needless to say, the King’s 30,000 euros hobby of elephant hunting in Botswana does not precisely rises waves of applause among beleaguered Spaniards. And remember, the disintegration of the former Yugoslavian federation accelerated when Mariscal Tito, the iron fist that balanced the precarious balance between Belgrade and the republics, died in 1980. It’s difficult to tell whether the absence of King Juan Carlos in the future would trigger a similar uncontrollable array of secessionist forces and chaos in such a problematic scenario of political uncertainty, but
The IMF package of structural adjustment and brutal austerity measures would not certainly be the agent provocateur of a hypothetical fragmentation of Spain but, as it did in former Yugoslavia, would considerably accelerate the breaking up of a delicate balance that has allowed Spain and its regions to at least coexist more or less respectfully after Franco’s brutal suppression of Spain’s multinational mosaic. The constitution of 1978 recognised, for the first time in many years of history, that Spain was a culturally and linguistically plural country (article 3.2), and introduced as well a new territorial organisation of the state with three levels of government: the central government, 17 autonomous regions and local councils. In this scheme, autonomous regions have enjoyed a decent amount of organisational autonomy despite the asymmetric logic of resource distribution. So Spain swerved from a totally centralised government with minimal protagonism for regional actors, to a decentralised state after Franco’s death.
Both Spaniards and Catalans need to stop buying the nationalist discourse of the centre and the periphery (which represent the interests of the Madrid and Barcelona economic oligarchies), and begin to articulate a rational and profound debate about the structure of the nation from the depths of grassroots social movements, from the people, just like the demonstration of 11th September was organised by the Catalan National Assembly, a non-partisan grassroots organisation. Spain will only learn to live without territorial tensions once it begins to understand and promote its own national diversity as part of its inherent richness. Unfortunately, the last movements for economic centralisation made by the Spanish government (and imposed by the IMF) bring Spain closer to Franco’s regime than to the political emancipation demanded by social movements and in this context, secession might look inevitable.
About Irrational Utopias or the American Dream as a Nightmare
“The owners of this country know the truth: It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
George Carlin
For a European like me, the American dream is often invoked in mainstream Hollywood films and TV series, which portray an idealised picture of individual heroes fighting against a usually hostile world or pursuing epic dreams of material prosperity, fame and fortune from the bottom of society. In popular culture, the American dream is usually described as the hope of anyone who comes to America, the land of limitless space, a land where everything is possible if individuals work hard enough, a land where it is always possible to go beyond, to achieve more, to make ideas infinitely productive and therefore, income generating. Apparently, everyone has the same opportunities to live the American dream so whoever is not able to do so must, apparently, be less fit, less clever, and less deserving of God’s grace. But this is not an article about inequality and the failure of the American dream for many US citizens who simply were not lucky enough to be “successful”, whatever that word means. What I intend here is to provide a more historical and philosophical insight into the human implications of an ideology underpinned by a sort of messianic idealism. The American dream is profoundly idealistic in the sense that isolated individuals seem to inhabit a world where material and economic prosperity is permanently possible and can only go upwards and citizens are in permanent competition with fellow citizens. Obviously, not every American citizen is driven by the same values and principles. The history of the US is plagued with struggles for democracy and civil rights scattered throughout the country, a very significant portion of progressive citizens with libertarian and emancipatory values trying to survive in the tsunami of mainstream America. Still, whether it is for the most reactionary or the most progressive segments of American society, the American dream demands a serious reappraisal if we consider how much American society (and the rest of the world too) have changed compared to the society that saw the birth of this ideology. The notion of the American dream is idealistic because it is a “dream”, that is, intangible and unconnected to the real, physical world. If we contextualise this idealism in light of the social and environmental problems suffered not only by the US but by much of the rest of humanity, to believe in the ever-growing progress of material prosperity of a society formed by a majority of isolated and atomised individuals pursuing false notions of success, fame, or their own idealised life, then the chances are the American dream becomes a nightmare of anguish and isolation. I am saying this with the occupy movements in mind. Witnessing the terrible consequences of the American dream (or the particular interpretation an elite has made of it) on the American economy in this last crisis, occupiers and protesters seem to have awakened from a “dream” that only privileged a few, and are now beginning to reinterpret their own history in search of new paradigms for social and economic organisation.
Having a look at definitions of the American dream in various dictionaries and other sources, the American dream reflects the tenets of this irrationally idealistic ideology. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the American dream as “a happy way of living that is thought of by many Americans as something that can be achieved by anyone in the U.S. especially by working hard and becoming successful”[1]. On the other hand, the web page http://todaysamericandream.com/ uses the words of the founding fathers to illustrate how the American dream has been conceived historically; according to Thomas Jefferson, the American dream is that in which “[n]othing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude”. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln sees America as a country where “[y]ou can have anything you want – if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, do anything you set out to accomplish if you hold to that desire with singleness of purpose”. Beyond biased interpretations and historical contextualisations, the previous definitions seem to be sustained on two leitmotivs, individualism and infinite material progress. But this particular idea of how human beings should organise their life as embodied by the values of the American way of life is historically and culturally rooted in an age where what was known about the nature of human beings and societies was quite different from what we know today. However, for a significant number of US citizens, the dream of the American dream still seems to embody the ideals of social cohesion and equality as part of the shared set of assumptions about the moral principles that should guide the nation. Can the ideals of the American dream, born in a completely different historical and cultural context, hold any validity in the 21st century? If not, how can it be rethought so as to suit it to the challenges of our times?
If we want to understand how and why the ideology of the American way of life is ill-suited to provide an ethically and environmentally sound framework for sustainable life in the 21st century, we need to go back to the European Renaissance. The roots of the ideology of the American dream might be traced back to the early puritan pioneers who arrived to the coast of what was going to become New England with the Mayflower back in December 1620. But a bigger picture emerges when consider the historical and religious context of the transition from medieval times to the Renaissance, in other words, the advent of modernity, and of the new economic order of capitalism, with its new work ethic. Towards the end of the 15th century, the crumbling down of the oppressive yet well-ordered and stratified medieval society implied a liberation from the shackles of medieval superstition and social immobility. Little by little, the new commercial and capitalist middle class offered a whole new world of commercial possibilities, and ever growing monopolies began to threaten and dismantle the old guilds, which provided a sense of economic and cultural stability in medieval society. However, instead of a true and lasting emancipation, such liberation was experienced as anguishing and isolating as the old certainties of the medieval age disappeared, old ties were cut, and individuals were left to face loneliness and isolation in a world with a new economic scenario. Anguish and doubt in a world bereft of any sense of belonging and stability defined the experience of the European middle class when facing the uncertainty of the world opened before them. This is the beginning of capitalism, when man becomes an instrument of the economic machinery created by himself, as Erich Fromm claims: “The spiritual liberation of man initiated by Protestantism was taken to mental, social and political levels by capitalism. Economic freedom was the basis for such development embodied by the new middle class. Individuals were not tied anymore to an unmovable social order founded on tradition […] Now men were allowed to put their faith in economic success”.[2] As Fromm suggests, the religious doctrines of reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin attempted to provide a sense of guidance and stability to the disoriented middle class although their proposal meant to surrender to another form of submission to God. In other words, what Luther and Calvin proposed to alleviate the anguish and powerlessness felt by the middle class facing a threatening and hostile “New World Order” was self-humiliation, which would eventually grant access to the divine world of God. Gone was the medieval world when dignified men and spiritual salvation were ends in themselves. Now, man (the middle class) becomes an instrument for a higher design: economic activity and the accumulation of capital. Thus, the protestant work ethic emerges at this point: incessant and compulsive work appears as a way of avoiding the anguish and fear of their (the European middle class) new situation in the new economic scenario[3]. As philosophers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer brilliantly argue, the hopes of freedom and democracy aroused by the collapse of the medieval order and birth of a new economic order (capitalism) were betrayed by the new scientific and religious dogmas of Newtonian atomism and Protestantism. Apart from shaping the cultural climate of Europe that was to be imported to America by Puritans and pioneers, both Newtonian atomism and Protestantism were interpreted to suit the economic needs of the ruling elite. In short, the new world that emerges with the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment conceived of man in the image of the philosophical and scientific ideas of the age: man became a commodity “free” to pursue his/her own dreams in a world of terrifying competition for apparently limitless economic opportunities and, likewise, nature became a commodity to be exploited. These are the two pillars of the American dream. Btu what kind of rationality is embodied by these ideas and principles?
It was in this historical context that the Puritan movement appeared, embodying the new zeitgeist as shown by its passion for thrift, their attempt to purify what they perceived as a corrupt and decaying Church of England. In line with Luther and Calvin, the Puritans stripped themselves off the authority of the church and decided to follow their own truth as found in the bible, hence their prosecution and their fleeing to the new world. Fiercely Calvinists, the Puritans enacted the Protestants work ethic which would eventually shape the American dream: work from dawn till dusk and thrift in order to secure salvation. If the concept of reason is defined as the human capacity to question and verify and justify facts through human intellect, then the Puritans’ strong and unquestioning belief in the authority of an unmerciful God contradicts the spirit of reason. As I mentioned before, the Protestant mentality acted like a Prozac; it justified compulsive work and material accumulation as a means to avoid thinking about death, uncertainty and cultural disorientation in a world that did not offer the security and stability of medieval societies.
As the pioneers grew in number, settlements expanded and with them, the frontier war with the local indigenous population, the tribes of North America. The frontier war reinforced the protestant ideas and preconceptions that formed the backbone of puritan ideology: the new settlers faced a hostile environment with which they maintained a permanent struggle for survival. But the new waves of immigrants did not cross the Atlantic Ocean with an empty cultural baggage. The philosophical and scientific ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries not only exerted an influenced but also certainly reinforced the individualistic mentality of the pioneers. One of the most powerful ideas holding sway at that time was Newtonian atomism. As part of the cultural framework of modernity, nature and society were conceived as mechanisms, large machines formed by replaceable parts, as Freya Matthews claims:
“How’s the natural order of atomism to be imitated in the social sphere? As long as each individual pursues his or her own interest and obeys his or her own ‘law’, viz. the law of self-interest subject to certain, outer, social and legal constraints, then, the Newtonians attest, ‘order’ will automatically establish itself at a collective level […] In this way, Newtonianism gave birth to the idea of a free market economy in which individuals would pursue their own material interests subject only to minimal legal constraints. The intention is to use the Newtonian philosophy to provide a fresh legitimation for the new socio-economic order embodied in the commerce of the middle class”[4].
Undoubtedly, this socio-cultural framework is the DNA of the American dream, and also one of the most important pillars of US economy, which depends crucially on the assumption that society is formed by individuals pursuing their own self-interest without interference from the state or any larger governmental institution. During the 19th century, the American dream adopted its most extreme form aided by a particular interpretation of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, contained in his book The Origin of Species. As capitalism was beginning to consolidate as the hegemonic economic system both in the US and in the world, so did the idea that society is made of individuals who struggle to survive, condemning the “weakest” to poverty and marginalisation. Thus, it was seen as “natural” that society and businesses adopt a predatory mentality where only the strongest survive. Again, the doctrine of Calvinism seems to be perfectly adjusted to the transformations of North American society: the only way to survive in society is by taking the Calvinist working ethic to justify an extremely opportunistic and materialistic society because material accumulation was seen as the only way of obtaining God’s acceptance in heaven.
Finally, the ideology of the American dream found sustenance in psychoanalysis. At the turn of the 20th century, Sigmund Freud discovery that consciousness is internally driven by innate and irrational forces. If social Darwinism exploited what was thought the most “rational” part of human nature during the 19th century (namely selfishness and strength), in the 20th century, the theories of Sigmund Freud were used to promote habits of consumption to suit the needs of consumer capitalism. Freudian theories were adopted by the Public Relations industry to address and maximise the irrational drives for consumption that were thought to exist within human beings. The objective was to sustain capitalism through the creation of a mass of consumers with consuming appetites that could always be satisfied. Again, is this rational? What conception of the world and of human beings is offered by this ideology of mass consumerism? What is the purpose of human beings in life under this ideology?
Luther, Calvin, Newton, Darwin, Freud…whether these religious thinkers, philosophers and scientists genuinely believed in a more emancipatory conception of humanity is difficult to know; they were all part of the socio-cultural landscape in which they were educated and lived. However, in the case of Luther and Calvin, their idea of both human beings and society was filled fear of an almighty God in front whom humans could only show their humbleness and insignificance as their human nature was, a priori, corrupted. Fear of the world, fear of fellow human beings, fear of death and thus, fear of life; certainly this is a recipe for a society dominated by anguish, repression and isolation, a society where citizens become instruments in the machinery of larger ideologies and economic systems. As in the 16th century, the American dream throws human beings into the void of a world devoid of meaning except for the sterile ideal of mass consumption and unquestioning acceptance of the economic system they are part of. From this perspective, the American dream seems the perpetuation of a Calvinist mentality that seeks in compulsive work and action evasion from the uncertainty and anguish of a threatening and hostile society, just like mass consumption helps us avoid thinking about death.
From an ecological perspective, the American dream must confront the sheer fact of finitude. The “dream” of living in a country (in this case the US though it could be any) of bountiful and infinite natural resources seems nowadays at least suicidal. According to the Energy Bulletin of the Post Carbon Institute, oil, natural gas, fresh water and top soil will start to decline in a few years and it does not take a rocket scientist to observe the increase in temperature of our planet Earth[5]. It is terribly ironic to see how the American way of life has been exported (by force) to other countries and constitutes, at present, the hegemonic economic system in Western societies. And precisely at a time when we need to think differently, to reconsider the way we have been inhabiting the planet, China and the European Union seem to be adopting their particular versions of the American way of life. In a nutshell, at a time when we have the most advanced philosophical and technological resources to create a more humane world, the economic and political elites continue to live in their bubble of abstraction, infinite economic growth, infinite consumption and infinite loneliness and isolation for human beings. At a certain point in its development, capitalism seemed to hold the promise of freedom and democracy, but its economic engine seems to have reached a point in which it will have to absorb and collapse the whole world that, ironically, serves its function.
Why do we have to accept this fate if knowledge in the 21st century tells a completely different story of how humans behave and interact with each other and with the world? Why do we have to accept that just when a new and truly enlightening humanism seems to be emerging form the convergence of scientific and humanistic knowledge, political and economic elites seem to be guiding us in the opposite direction? Human beings do not act out of utter selfishness for no reason. Recent developments in neuroscience tell us that babies display signs of empathy shortly after being born[6]. Human evolution is based on learning and learning is a form of empathy, because in order to learn from others we need to, at least momentarily, situate ourselves in the place of others, feel like moving as they do[7]. The fittest will survive, yes, but the fittest may not necessarily be the physically strongest but a member of the species showing particular adaptational traits to a particular and changing environment, so each particular environment will demand particular adaptational qualities.
Of course, it is not my intention to paint an unrealistic and idealised picture of human beings as inherently and merely benign and altruistic, this would not be helpful to understanding human nature except for simply placing the emphasis on the opposite aspect of human nature. But human nature is not a matter of black and white opposites. Human beings are not inherently destructive or loving creatures; rather, both impulses to creation and empathy and to destruction are likely to emerge depending on the conditions of the social-cultural context. In other words, human beings do not inhabit an abstract vacuum like the American dream. On the contrary, human beings inhabit a physical world with which they are in constant interaction. In a society that fosters the values of cooperation, empathy and solidarity, such values will probably manifest themselves in more profusion keeping selfishness at bay, although both cooperation and selfishness might be useful for survival in certain contexts. Similarly, societies governed by the principles of selfishness and individualism will naturally tend to see these features govern the cultural climate. In the same line, as professor Enrico Coen suggests, competition and cooperation are two of the seven recipes for life that make it possible, they go hand in hand: “[c]ompetition leads to cooperative spatial units and these in turn provide the assemblies that drive further competition”.[8] There is no reason not to believe that a more profound understanding of human nature can emerge from the recent interdisciplinary contributions in several fields of knowledge, and there is no reason not to think that these developments can provide effective frameworks for the maximisation of human and non-human welfare and the creation of a better world. Will the ruling economic and political elites might be in favour of a change of paradigm that might possibly endanger their privileges? If they don’t then people will because cultural change has always gone hand in hand with human evolution. The so-called civilisation of money and mass consumption in a world of individuals in a no-society (which is the core of the American dream) does not and cannot possibly offer reasonable answers to the socio-cultural and environmental challenges faced not only by Americans but by the entire world in the 21st century. It is time for us the people to enact the change now with or without the elites. If it wants to survive, the new American dream needs to arise again from a new conception of modernity that places humans and nature in the centre of a society ruled by compassion, gentleness and knowledge in the service of nature and man.
[1] Meriam Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary,
[2] Erich Fromm, El Miedo a la Libertad (The Fear of Freedom), Barcelona, Paidos, pages 130-131.
[3] Erich Fromm, El Miedo a la Libertad, 107-115.
[4] Freya Matthews, The Ecological Self, London, Routledge, 1991, p. 24.
[5] Post Carbon Institute, Energy Bulletin,
[6] Evan Thompson, Human consciousness: from Intersubjectivity to Interbeing, available at
[7] Enrico Coen, Cells to Civilizations: The Principles of Change That Shape Life, Princeton University Press, (to be published on May the 27th 2012). Cited by kind permission of the author.
[8] Enrico Coen, Cells to Civilisation.
“If you don’t let us dream, we won’t let you sleep”: Spanish people say enough is enough and take to the streets.
Last week saw the birth of a movement that has electrified Spanish social and political life. The 15M movement or the movement for a real democracy now emerges as the galvanising protest of a significant part of Spanish society (especially its youth) which has witnessed how shrinking standards of life (soaring unemployment and housing prices, precarious jobs and low-frozen wages, an alarming lack of job opportunities and bleak prospects for self-realisation in life) have found no response from an increasingly oligarchic and bi-partisan political system. This is certainly one of the biggest problems of Spanish democracy now and one that has undoubtedly sparked the taking of the streets these days. Since the advent of democracy after Franco’s death, Spain has been governed by the UCD (Unión de Centro Democrático, a centre-right party) first, and later by the PSOE, whose 12 year rule ended in 1996 with the victory of the PP (the Spanish conservative party). The defeat of the PP after the 11M terrorist attacks sent the PSOE back to power. It is not surprising that citizens have been seeing how Spanish democracy has become an alternation of two political parties (PP and PSOE) perceived as offering similar political programmes with no real alternatives to the economic crisis. The roots of discontent must be found in a/ the “neoliberalisation” of the PSOE, who has unashamedly embraced the economic measures imposed by the IMF (privatisation, cuts in health and social services and the shrinking of worker’s rights, among others) and b/ the bipolarisation of political life due to an unfair electoral system. The Spanish electoral system is based on the D’hondt law, a mathematical formula that, in general terms, ensures that both PP and PSOE obtain more representatives than actual votes. In this way, a significant part of the voting population sees how their preference has been deformed by a more than questionable distribution system. On the other hand, the economic policies of the PSOE have lost a large part of its social scope since the 90’s: the adoption of a strong neoliberal approach to Spanish economy (by the alternating governments of PSOE and the PP) has been disastrous for the socialist party, which is not seen any more as governing for the interests of Spanish citizens. One of the consequences of this neoliberal approach led to the massive bubble in the construction sector under the government of Jose Maria Aznar, whose explosion had dramatic consequences for the government of Zapatero.
Against this critical economic situation and finding no receptiveness to their claims on behalf of the ruling party (the PSOE), youth, retired and unemployed participated in a massive protest on May the 15th organised via social networks, whose aim was to express their anger and profound dissatisfaction with a political system seen as playing the game of financial institutions. In the age of internet and information technologies, it is simply ludicrous to pretend citizens will believe official propaganda that presents as necessary measures the massive cuts in health system and in other areas of the welfare state. Protesters know very well that the crisis was caused by the very same capitalist systems that economic measures attempt to save. Citizens refuse to allow banks and international financial institutions to gamble with their hopes and dreams. This outburst of collective consciousness no doubt mirrors the revolts sweeping the Arab world and the example given by Icelandic citizens (who voted against paying for the bank’s gambling) for inspiration.
One of the most interesting aspects of this growing movement is its desire for a radical change in the way democracy is performed in Spain. All of the elements I have mentioned before galvanised a call for participatory democracy that brings back a greater sense of people’s involvement in the running of local and national political affairs. In this sense, the movement demands resemble those made under the banner of participatory democracy. In this sense, it is interesting to see how decisions taken in the assemblies organised across Spain are being put together in manifestos and taken to local or neighbour’s councils. Despite the victory of the PP in the local elections, the social networks emerging from the assemblies in Madrid, Barcelona and elsewhere seem to be recalling people of the need to take the streets and coordinate collective strategies of empowerment. This is the most important lesson to be learnt from these protests: whatever form they take, citizens take with them the realisation that they are not individuals passing alone in the dark night of economic crisis; that the energy of collective action is strong enough to mobilise passion into action; that beyond individual or local demands, there is a collective sense of injustice that needs to be channelled into precise and coordinated strategies of action aimed at reverting economic measures that affect the welfare state. I suspect the more than likely victory of the PP in the next general elections will only add fuel to the fire: nobody expects the PP economic policies to differ greatly from those that have led PSOE into collapse. That is why I believe it is necessary to consider the 15M movement as a long term process rather than a particular set of protests and, in this sense, it is good to remember the case of other countries who are in the process of overcoming both the disruptive interventions of the IMF and oligarchic political systems. Despite the obvious economic and socio-cultural differences, it is striking to see that countries like Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, for instance, have seen their political system dominated by small elites with a friendly hand towards the impositions of the IMF. In the 80’s, the effects of these economic measures in South America were as disastrous (e.g. privatisation of public services leading to massive levels of social inequality and poverty, the weakening and disarming of trade unions, the opening up of domestic markets to foreign intervention and a long etc.) as they can be in Spain if local governments persist in their implementation against the interests of the people to whom these governments are ultimately answerable. The case of Venezuela is worth mentioning at this point. After 40 years of “bipartidismo” (which is the government of two alternating political parties, Acción Democrática (AD) and COPEI, established by means of the “Pacto de Punto Fijo” in 1958) the communist party of Venezuela (PCV) was systematically excluded from elections, and the oligarchy of the two-party system did not resolve the profound social inequalities. Likewise, the imposition in 1989 of IMF-led measures that increased the price of petrol and liberalised prices led to great social instability and widespread protests that led to the massacre of almost 1000 people. It is in this context that, after a failed coup d’état, Hugo Chavez was elected as President of Venezuela in 1998, initiating a radical political change in the country that contemplated the creation of a socialist republic without the yoke of the IMF or the World Bank. I am not suggesting that Spain should follow the same path as both countries, as I have said before, are profoundly different in social, economic and cultural terms. However, the pattern of events in Venezuela and the form of participatory democracy that characterises the government of Hugo Chavez invites us, at least, to consider the current political and economic situation of Spain from a wider perspective. Also, the cases of “bipartidismo” in Venezuela and Spain show that democratic inclusiveness was sacrificed for the sake of political stability, which is usually the most desired environment for economic investment by national and multinational corporations. In this sense, it will be interesting to see how new networks of cooperation emerge between Spanish and South American networks: the projects of participatory democracy developed across Venezuela might certainly be inspirational to the incipient 15M movement although it is difficult at present to discern the precise direction the Spanish movement will take. However, the transnational dimension of the Spanish protests makes the creation of networks of dialogue and interaction inevitable.
It is not difficult to imagine the helplessness and desperation of people for whom the benefits of the so called “forces of the market” translate into corruption, unemployment and injustice; that is why the Spanish, Arab and South American versions of their own revolutionary projects need to reinforce each other in as many ways as possible against the government of corrupt financial institutions who have not been elected and therefore, lack the legitimacy to decide the fate of nations and their citizens. Whilst respect for economic and socio-cultural difference needs to be strengthened and supported, the articulation and reinforcement of new and pre-existing transnational networks of resistance is absolutely crucial. In other words, difference need to be respected but commonalities sought and reinforced because as David Slater suggests in his book Geopolitics and the Post-colonial: Rethinking North-South Relations, “globalisation from below can help expand the ethic of participatory democracy to a variety of spatial levels, not just the global but the supra-national, regional, local and community levels”[1]. And, finally, this is why it is so refreshing to see how the seeds for new and inclusive forms of democracy are being planted in so many places across the world.
[1] David Slater, Geopolitics and the Post-colonial: Rethinking North-South Relations, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.
Here are some suggestions for your first post.
- You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
- Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting page you read on the web.
- Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can alway preview any post or edit you before you share it to the world.
tonicuadrado36 