The World Left After 2011

The World Left After 2011 trGgl

Wallerstein proposes: the multiple chains that want to overcome capitalism must build agreements, not to waste huge hopes raised in the year   For any angle, 2011 was a good year for the international left - whatever the scope of the definition of each one of the world left. The fundamental reason was the negative economic condition, which affects most of the world.   Unemployment, which was high, rose even more. Most governments faced large debts and reduced revenue. Their response was to try to impose austerity measures against their populations, while trying to protect banks.   The result was a revolt global movement Occuppy what Wall Street calls the "99%". The targets were the excessive polarization of wealth, corrupt governments, and these are essentially undemocratic governments - they have multiparty systems or not.   The Occuppy Wall Street, and the Angry Arab Spring did not achieve everything they had hoped. But managed to change the discourse world, leading him away from the ideological mantra of neoliberalism - for issues such as inequality, injustice and decolonization. For the first time in a long time, ordinary people began to discuss the nature of the system in which they live. I no longer see it as natural or inevitable ...   The question for the world's left now is how to move forward and convert the success of the opening speech in political transformation. The problem can be stated very simply. Although there is, in economic terms, a clear and growing gap between a very small group (1%) and a very large (99%), the political division does not follow the same pattern. Worldwide, the center-right forces still command about half of the world, or at least those who are politically active in some way.   Therefore, to transform the world, the international left will need a degree of political unity that has not. There are deep disagreements on both the long-term goals and tactics on the short term. It's not that these problems are not being discussed. Rather, they are hotly debated, and little progress has been made ​​to overcome these divisions.   These disagreements are old. That does not make them easier to solve. There are two major divisions. The first is in relation to elections. There are two, but three positions on. There is a group deeply suspicious of elections, arguing that participate in them is not only politically ineffective, but it reinforces the legitimacy of the existing world system.   Others think it is crucial to participate in electoral processes. But this group is divided into two. On the one hand, there are those who claim to be pragmatic. They want to work from within - within the larger center-left parties when there is a functioning multiparty system, or within one-party parliament when the switch is not allowed.   There are, of course, those who condemn this policy of choosing the lesser evil. They insist that there is no significant difference between the major parties and are in favor of voting for some that is "genuinely" on the left.   We are all familiar with this debate and we've heard the arguments many times. However, it is clear, at least for me, that if there is some agreement between these three groups in relation to electoral tactics, the international left has little chance of prevailing in the short or long term.   I think there is a way of reconciliation. It consists in making a distinction between short-term tactics and long-term strategies. I completely agree with those who argue that more state power is irrelevant to the long-term transformation of the world system - and possibly prejudice. As a strategy of transformation has been attempted and failed several times.   This does not mean that participate in elections is a waste of time. We must consider that a large proportion of 99% are suffering in the short term. This suffering is your primary concern. Trying to survive and help their families and friends to survive. If we think of governments rather than as potential agent of social change, but as structures that can affect the short-term suffering through immediate policy decisions, then left the world will be forced to do what you can to achieve measures to minimize pain.   Act to minimize the pain requires turnout. And the debate between the proponents of the lesser evil and those who propose to support genuine left-wing parties? This decision becomes a place of tactics, which varies greatly according to several factors: the size of the country, formal political structure, demographic, geopolitical position, its political history. There is no standard answer. And the answer to 2012 also will not necessarily serve for 2014 or 2016. It is not, at least for me, a discussion of principles. Respect, much more to the tactical situation of each country.   The second fundamental debate on the left is present between developmentalism and what can be called a change in priority of civilization. We can see this debate in many parts of the world. He is present in Latin America in the heated debates between left governments and indigenous movements - for example in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela. It can also be followed in North America and Europe, the debate between environmentalists / greens and unions, which give priority to maintaining existing jobs and the expansion of employment.   On the one hand, the developmental option, supported by leftist governments or trade unions, argues that without economic growth, it is not possible to address the economic inequalities in the world today - both those that exist within each country and the international. This group accuses his opponent of supporting at least objectively and subjectively perhaps, the interests of right-wing forces.   Those who support the anti-developmentalist option say the focus on economic growth is wrong in two respects. It is a policy that carries out the worst features of the capitalist system. It is a policy that causes irreparable damage - social and environmental.   This division seems even more in love, if it is possible that the disagreement over electoral participation. The only way to solve this is with commitments, different in each case. To make this possible, each group must believe in good faith and in the other left-wing credentials. This will not be easy.   These differences can be overcome in the next five or ten years? I'm not sure. But if not, do not believe that the international left can win the next twenty or forty years, the crucial battle. Here we define what kind of system will succeed capitalism, when this system definitely go down.   Translation: Daniela Frabasile http://www.outraspalavras.net/2012/01/03/a-esquerda-mundial-apos-2011/