Letter to the Left

Letter to the Left trGgl

The historical divisions between the left were justified by imposing an ideological construct, but in fact, its sustainability practice-that is, the credibility of policy proposals that allowed them to gather supporters, based on three factors: colonialism, which allowed the movement of primitive accumulation of capital (for violent dispossession, with countless human sacrifice, often illegal but always with impunity) out of the core capitalist countries where social struggles waged considered decisive: the emergence of national capitalisms with such different characteristics (state capitalism, corporate, liberal, social-democratic) that gave credence to the idea that there are several alternatives to overcome capitalism, and finally, the changes that have been operating Socias struggles in liberal democracy, social redistribution and allowing some separating, to some extent, market goods (the values ​​that are priceless and are bought and sold) market belief (and the options of political values ​​that do not have price, can not be bought or sold). If left for some such separation was a new, for others it was a dangerous deception. Recent years have changed so thoroughly that nothing any of these factors will be as before for the left as we know them. With regard to colonialism radical changes are of two types. On the one hand, capital accumulation by dispossession violent returned to the former metropolis (theft of wages and pensions, collective illegal transfers of funds to rescue private banks, financial gangsterism impunity) a struggle for what kind of anti-colonial will now be waged in cities, a struggle which, as we know, never was ruled by parliamentary courtesies. On the other hand, although the neo (the continuation of colonial-style relations between former colonies and former cities or their substitutes, in case the U.S.) have allowed the accumulation by dispossession in the former colonial world has continued until today , part of this is assuming a new role (India, Brazil, South Africa, and the special case of China, humiliated by Western imperialism during the nineteenth century) and the point that we do not know if there will be new cities in the future and, by implication, new colonies. As for national capitalisms, the end seems marked out by the shredder of neoliberalism. It is true that in Latin America and China seem to rise to new versions of capitalist domination but intriguingly they prevail all the opportunities that neoliberalism entails. But 2011 proved that the left and neo-liberalism are incompatible. Just see how the rise of stock prices to the same extent it increases social inequality and social protection is destroyed. How long will it take the left to take the consequences? Finally, liberal democracy is dying under the weight of the de facto powers (Mafia, Freemasonry, Opus Dei, transnational corporations, IMF, World Bank) and the impunity of corruption, abuse of power and influence peddling. The result is a growing fusion between the political marketplace of ideas and interests of the market economy. Everything is for sale and not only sells more because there is no one to buy. In the last fifty years the left (all) have a fundamental contribution that liberal democracy had any credibility with grassroots and social conflicts could be resolved peacefully. Being sure that the right only cares for democracy in that it serves their interests, the Left today is the great guarantee the rescue of democracy. They will be up to the task? Have the courage to reestablish democracy beyond liberalism? A robust democracy against the anti-democracy that combines representative democracy with participatory democracy and direct democracy? An anti-capitalist democracy against an increasingly anti-democratic capitalism?   * Boaventura de Sousa Santos is a sociologist and professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra (Portugal).   http://www.cartamaior.com.br/templates/colunaMostrar.cfm?coluna_id=5402

Fuente: