Memories of the future. Keynesianism, the childhood disease of neoliberalism.

Memories of the future. Keynesianism, the childhood disease of neoliberalism.

By Agustín Morán (CAES)

Crisis of the welfare state in Europe

The conditions that made possible 25 years of capitalism with a human face in Europe ended in the mid-1970s of the last century. The increase in the price of oil, the improvement in working conditions and the increase in the organic composition of capital, in an environment of open economies and growing competitiveness, unbalanced the Keynesian accumulation model based on the centrality of demand. and full employment as engines of economic growth.

From here, the strategies of European capital evolved towards the incorporation of new technologies, decentralization and productive relocation, and the flexibilization of the labor market. The growing public deficit derived from the economic stagnation and the increase in state spending, justified the cuts in social protection and the privatization of companies and public services.

Together with the organizational and productive changes - of different pace and intensity in each country - these processes led to labor segmentation and increased differences within the salaried population. The weakness of the unions is the premise and result of this dynamic. In the demand economy, typical of the “capitalism with a human face” of rich countries, all those measures that favor the virtuous circle between economic growth, productivity increases and wages in a context of moderate inflation and balance in finances are functional. public. In this economic model (Keynesianism), full employment is the condition for the full deployment of the productive forces and the maximum production of surplus value. The majority left and the European right became Keynesian. Keynes defended a model based on the administrative regulation of the labor market through a pact between the government and the unions as a guarantee of corporate respect for said regulation. During twenty-five years of the welfare state in Europe (1950-1975), the unions disciplined every businessman interested in everyone - except him - paying good wages so that the economy would prosper and be able to sell their products. The complement was the intervention of the state in social protection, guaranteeing - "from the cradle to the grave" - ​​the social rights threatened by an increasingly large and free market. Keynes theorizes the operation of capitalism in an economic cycle of sustained growth, increases in productivity, full employment, low inflation, and budget stability.

On the contrary, under the neoliberal model - in which the main thing is to boost supply - unions must discipline workers so that they accept the sacrifices required by competitiveness and permanence in the euro. However, Keynesianism and neoliberalism have in common the subordination of politics and democracy to the cycle of production and reproduction of capital. When the virtuous circle of the market economy is broken, a paradigm shift occurs. In the supply economy, the proper functioning of the economic cycle requires improvements in competitiveness, which requires producing at a lower cost than competitors. Whoever prevents salary costs from varying according to the laws of the market, deteriorates competitiveness and with it, the expectations of capital benefits that will reduce or relocate their investments, destroying jobs.

Today, after 20 years of galloping globalization of the market, the supply economy in its purest neoliberal version is in full disarray. Notions such as democracy, citizenship, political pluralism, separation of powers, rule of law, peace, human rights, and legal security are degraded and ignored every day and everywhere. The entirely capitalist world is blazing with triumphant calamity. The new desperate change to the Keynesian jacket is not going to work because its conditions of possibility have disappeared: a) in a globalized economy, Keynesianism is not possible in a single country and b) the Nation State, necessary for the political dominance of the bourgeoisie , It is incompatible with the governance of the world capitalist economy in which different actors command the states that, at whatever price, do not admit more sovereignty than their own. Chronology of the Europe of capital 1948: Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, create an economic and customs union (BENELUX).

1952: Italy, France and the FRG form, together with BENELUX, a customs union for coal and steel. It is the Economic Community of Coal and Steel (CECA).

1957: Treaty of Rome. The ECSC extends the agreement for coal and steel to the rest of the merchandise. Constitution of the European Economic Community. Europe of the Six.

1962: The Spanish government asks the EEC to open negotiations for accession. The answer was a cold acknowledgment. Subsequently, in 1970, the Spanish state signed a preferential agreement with the EEC based on tariff reductions and the elimination of some contingents in foreign trade.

1970: October. The Council of Ministers of the EEC considers for the first time, at the proposal of Pierre Werner, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, the horizon of a single currency in Europe within ten years. The crisis of international capitalism, which began in 1973, prevented the development of this process.

1973: The EEC is expanded with the entry of England, Ireland and Denmark. Europe of the Nine.

1977: July. The first Spanish democratic government, chaired by Adolfo Suárez, requests, a few days after its constitution, to join the EEC.

1979: The European Monetary System (EMS) and the ECU are created, as a unit of account, based on a "basket" of Community currencies. The SME perfects the "monetary snake" created in 1972 and seeks to correct speculative mismatches between currencies, establishing a fluctuation band of 2.25% around the central exchange rate defined with respect to the ecu. The peseta will enter the SME in July 1986.

1981: Incorporation of Greece. Europe of the Ten.

1986: Accession of Portugal and Spain. Europe of the Twelve. In February of this year the Single European Act was signed, which establishes as the central axis of European construction the construction of a single market for January 1, 1993. The single currency is part of this process as a necessary end for the functioning of said market. The rhetoric on social cohesion incorporates, on the one hand, the structural funds to limit the deep imbalances that the economic opening will entail in the weakest countries, but on the other hand it represents a mere make-up in the face of the demands of flexibility and precariousness
From handwork.

1989: The "Delors Plan" for economic and monetary union is approved in three phases. The first phase, starting in July 1990, seeks to promote the liberalization of capital movements and the development of convergence conditions. The instrument is the cooperation of the Central Banks for the coordination of monetary policies.

1992: In February the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) is signed in Maastricht. It is expected to enter into force on November 1, 1993. The TEU establishes the legality that will govern the European construction from this date until the total implementation of the single currency in July 2002. It collects and adapts within it - as a holding treaty - the rest of the European construction agreements since its inception. The monetary character of the European Union is strengthened at the expense of the social, political, and even economic dimension. Convergence conditions seek price stability (interest rates, inflation and currency parity), imposing limits on the political intervention of the State in the economic cycle (deficit
public debt and public debt) The TEU establishes the second phase of the Monetary Union (January 1994), it is promoting the coordination of central banks and the creation of the European Monetary Institute and also the third phase that will begin
January 1997 or, in any case, January 1999.
In September 1992, the first wave of speculative harassment by transnational capital of the weakest currencies took place. This attack is called a "currency storm." After the precarious victory of the "yes" in the French referendum on Maastricht (20.9.91) and the "no" to Maastricht in the first referendum in Denmark (3.6.92), big international capital loses confidence in the viability of the single currency and, therefore, in the guarantee of non-devaluation of the currencies of the weakest countries, including Spain. The speculative movements are so violent that they end up expelling the Italian lira and the English pound from the EMS. The Spanish State is forced to use 25% of its foreign exchange reserves to stop the collapse of the peseta, which begins a path of depreciation and four devaluations, from a parity of 63 pesetas / mark before
September 1992 at 93 pesetas / mark at the beginning of 1995. The SME jumps through the air. The fluctuation bandwidth is changed from plus minus 6% to plus minus 15%.

1995: On January 1, Austria, Finland and Sweden enter. Europe of the Fifteen. In December the Madrid Summit decided to call the single currency euro and the stage for the third phase of the monetary union in three stages.

1997: July. Treaty of Amsterdam. The TEU revision fails on the institutional and foreign policy aspects. However, the Stability Pact is incorporated, which provides for fines of between 0.2% and 0.5% of GDP for countries that, once within the single currency, fail to comply with the public deficit conditions.

1998: In March negotiations are opened for the accession of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Cyprus. In a second wave, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia and Slovakia await the opening of negotiations. On May 2, the Brussels Summit of the European Council (heads of state or government, ministers of foreign affairs and president of the European Commission), approve the irrevocable parities between currencies (85.07 pesetas / mark and 168 pesetas / euro) , starting on January 1, 1999. The London Summit approves, at the proposal of the European Monetary Institute, the list of the eleven countries that will make up the euro. They are all but Sweden, Denmark, England and Greece. The last phase of the Monetary Union Until 1-1-1999, screening of the countries that pass to the third phase. Creation of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the System of European Central Banks (SBCE). Start of the manufacture of the euro. Legislative adaptations for the adoption of the single currency. First stage. From 1-1-1999 to 12-31-2001 (transitional period). Beginning of the third phase. Irrevocable changes. (1 euro = 166,386 ptas). Euro as a fully-fledged currency of voluntary use (no obligation, no prohibition). The Ecu disappears. The operation of SBCE and TARGET (interbank clearing system) begins. New exchange rate mechanism between the euro and other currencies of non-participating countries in the first wave. Principle of continuity in contracts (pesetas-euro).

Public debt in euros.

Second stage: From 1-1-2002 to 06-30-2002 (exchange period). The circulation of euro notes and coins begins. Withdrawal of banknotes and coins from each state. Pesetas and euros are legal tender. Transactions in both currencies.

Change from pesetas to euros at banks. Third stage: From 1-1-2002: Circulation of the euro. As of March 1, 2002, the peseta is no longer legal tender. You can only exchange pesetas into euros at the Bank of Spain (1 euro = 166,386 pesetas.)

On March 1, 2004, 10 countries joined (Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Cyprus, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. (Romania and Bulgaria remain for 2007). These 10 countries add 80 million inhabitants (27% of the EU total) They have a per capita income of less than 40% of the EU average and contribute 7% of the GDP of the current EU 15.

2005. The failed "European Constitution". The NO to the European Constitution (C.E.) in the French and Dutch referendums prior to the summer of 2005, was a serious setback to the legitimization process of the Europe of the Euro. Despite the victory of the YES, the referendum in Spain of 20 / II / 05 showed, in its precariousness (less than a third of the Spanish population supported the EC), the fall of popular participation in the successive elections to Parliament European. This trend expresses the break between the true social consequences of European globalization and the promises of progress and well-being with which it tries to legitimize. In the Europe of Capital, democracy is hijacked by the markets and inhabits, above all, in the Social Movements that face their dictatorship. 2007 (12-13-2007). The 27 member states sign the Lisbon Treaty which, until May 2009, is not ratified by the parliaments of 26 of the 27 states, except for Ireland, which holds a referendum in which the majority reject the treaty. This treaty maintains the fiction of institutionalizing a single market of 27 very different countries, with a single currency shared by 15 countries (the previous twelve were joined by Slovenia in 2007 and Cyprus and Malta in 2008), as well as the mistaken full promises employment, more democracy, peace, security, human rights and social protection in a context of recession, cuts, real estate bubble, speculation, growing political corruption and active participation in the military confrontation with the disobedient countries of North Africa, the Sahel, Middle East and Middle East.

The violence of the euro

With the Single European Act of 1986, the dominant logic in the process of European construction became visible: the creation of a Single Market. A Single Market needed a single currency. This objective was established with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which outlines a European unity, not political, cultural or social - not even economic - but monetary. A Europe for Capital. In it, what is unified is the universalization of the commodity form and its fetish, money. In Euro Europe the most relevant information for politicians is that expressed in monetary terms. The institution that stands out in power and independence over all others is the European Central Bank, which, without being bound by any democratic power, binds everyone.

The weakness of the Community institutions, which are more intergovernmental than European, together with their limited resources to limit the devastating effects of the speculative economy, contrast with the independence of the European Central Bank. Without abiding by any political control -both of national and European governments and parliaments- the ECB's mission is to set monetary policy (interest rates) and ensure the stability of prices that capital needs to move without distortions in space. economic of the euro. The priority objectives of this monetarist policy are:

1) monetary stability at the expense of whatever (precariousness, unemployment, loss of purchasing power) and

2) budgetary stability at any price (unemployment insurance, pensions, privatization of health, education and dependency).

The euro is necessary for the proper functioning of the single market, the true content of the European project. The macroeconomic conditions that governments voluntarily impose on themselves make their own sovereignty impossible because they prevent the application of the policies that their citizens need, among them, the modification of the parity of the currency itself with respect to others. What governments decide is then presented as an insurmountable framework. Prisoners of the iron cage that they themselves have created, they desist from measures aimed at job creation, social and environmental protection and the devaluation of their own currency to gain competitiveness in international markets. The euro radically unifies the language in which capitalist economic and social relations are expressed. The different currencies of the European countries maintained the ability to vary their relative proportions through depreciation, in order to favor the competitiveness of their exports and balance different rates of inflation, interest rates or taxation. The constituent process of European capital demanded an end to the distortions produced by differences in production structure, technology, wealth, natural resources and standard of living. But above all, put an end to price instability including, first of all, the price of money. However, to unify the currency is to unify a sign, but not the designated one. The enormous material differences between the states included in the euro do not dissolve but, as experience shows, they increase. Spain, since its entry in 1986, had a margin of seven years to gradually lower tariff barriers and import restrictions from the rest of the European Community countries.
Once the euro was introduced as the single currency in March 2001, despite the great differences between the different economies of the member countries and in an environment of great trade openness, the only way to gain competitiveness is the devaluation of the price of the labor force through the fall in direct wages and the dismantling or privatization of social protection. To join the European Union and later the euro, all economic and social sacrifices were legitimized. What we did not know then is that, twenty years later, we should make even greater sacrifices in order not to leave the euro. The second economic agent to be disciplined by the neoliberal economy is the State that manages, through its General Budgets (P.G.E.), 40% of the wealth produced in a year (Gross Domestic Product-GDP). As of 1992, the Maastricht Treaty limited the state's capacity to intervene in the economic cycle by establishing that the public deficit (difference between its expenses and its income), could not exceed 3% of the P.I.B. and that the public debt (sum of the historical deficits) could not exceed 60% of the P.I.B. When economic leadership is handed over to the benefit of companies, instead of human rights and the preservation of life, financing the deficit through progressive taxes and fighting tax fraud, it is not "politically" possible because it drives away the investors. Therefore, the only way to reduce the deficit of the state is to reduce expenses, even if that means abandoning the unemployed, precarious and retired to their fate.

The Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997 incorporated, with the Stability and Growth Pact, the commitment to budgetary stability - regardless of the needs of each country - under the threat of fines for countries that do not comply with this rule. This treaty failed in the attempts to modify the European political architecture in the face of an expansion of member countries and gave a twist to the subordination of society with respect to monetary stability and the prominence of corporate profit. The Stability Pact establishes that countries with a public deficit greater than 3% of GDP, would pay a fine of 0.2% of their P.I.B. For each percentage point that the deficit exceeds 3%, the fine would increase by one tenth (0.1% of GDP) up to the limit of 0.5%. These amounts would be withdrawn from the cohesion funds and structural funds received by the offending country to remain in an ECB account without remuneration for two years. If, at the end of this period, the offending country persists in its non-compliance, the amount withheld becomes the property of the ECB to be distributed among countries that comply with budgetary stability.

The weakest countries, in need of more public resources to overcome their deficiencies, are punished with economic sanctions that make them even weaker. What has happened to Greece, Portugal and Ireland since 2011 was written in the Agreements of the European Union for twenty years. So that it would not happen to us, the Spanish government ratified the illegal delivery of our sovereignty to big European capital by modifying art. 135 of the Constitution in November 2011. This modification subordinates the economic policies to solve problems such as employment, housing or health, to the satisfaction of the interests of the Spanish public debt against foreign creditors.

Europe of the euro and democracy

The involution of the State as a mechanism for the redistribution of income and social protection is of such intensity that, in 2012, the ministers of ECOFIN (Council of Ministers of Economy and Finance of the European Union) have established the objective of Zero Deficit, radicalizing the Treaty. of Maastricht and the Treaty of Amsterdam. On this horizon, the Spanish Government registers its Stability and tax reform plans: A) Lower direct taxes to attract foreign investment, circulate money and activate businesses even if the State does not have the resources to mitigate the inequalities caused by the market .

B) Discharge the State of the financial effort to guarantee pensions, health and education, in the intelligence of

that private interest will better protect these constitutional rights.

C) Prohibit by the maximum law the financing of public investment through indebtedness of the administrations (modification of art. 135 of the C.E.).

D) Precarize and strip rights to salaried work to make it transparent to the laws of supply and demand.

E) Put the protection of the national economy and the citizens in a lower rank than the protection of capital investors.

F) Disregard the human rights and legal guarantees of citizens and workers that hinder the proper functioning of the labor force merchandise.

G) Condition subsidies and unemployment benefits to the full availability of the worker in the face of junk contracts.

H) Make the part-time contract more flexible as a way to enter the labor market.

How is it possible that this “European construction”, which violates the political and social rights of the majority,
be supported by the entire parliamentary arch?

The electoral programs of the left, when it proclaims, from the opposition, that "another economic policy is possible", contrast with its support for the process of European monetary unit and the policies of flexibility, social cuts and privatization, when it is in the government. In periods of economic depression, under social democratic governments, a state of necessity and legal defenselessness have been generated that explain why millions of workers accept “freely” working conditions under laws and collective agreements and abusive clauses in the mortgage on your homes. The consent by the majority left in the fraud of the law of millions of temporary employment contracts for fixed tasks, in the systematic violation of the rights of precarious sectors and in hundreds of thousands of illegal mortgage contracts, are a necessary condition for these unjust abuses. and illegal.

The labor reforms, promoted by the governments and accepted by the big unions, have gradually turned into legal the illegal abuses that were already commonplace. These policies, contrary to the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights enshrined in the Constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, are incompatible with democracy.

The crisis of the left

One cannot speak of a “Welfare State” without taking into account the political, economic and geostrategic conditions in which it arose. In Europe, capitalism with a human face lasted twenty-five years because of the opportunities for economic reconstruction that occurred in the post-world war, but also because of the constituent power of the European workers' revolutions and the triumph of one of them in the Soviet Union ( 1917 - 1989), giving way to a social welfare guaranteed by economic planning and not by the market in the context of the world wars (1914 - 1919 and 1939 - 1945) and a bipolar world dominated by the arms race (1945 - 1989) .. The political and ideological construction of the working class by the European left consisted in the emulation of the values ​​of the bourgeoisie: individualism, market, private property, competition, consumerism, waste and political disengagement, including the advantages of domination over countries colonized by the European powers. This process explains why, today, the political, social and moral strength of the left depends on the consent of the powers that be.

Despite numerous local and sectoral struggles, throughout the 1980s and 1990s the new economic policy based on precarious, privatized, deregulated, outsourced and relocated was imposed. With it, the theory that theorizes it is imposed: neoliberalism, now applied - as it happened with Keynesianism - by the governments of the right and the left. The prefix neo, breaks with the liberal Keynesian promise of well-being from capitalist economic growth and turns this growth into a self-referential goal, increasingly emancipated from employment, the real economy, nature and democracy. The emergence of emerging regional powers - some with the vocation of world power - in a context of global economic crisis, marks the path of the United States, which, at the dictates of its industrial - military - financial complex, applies a militaristic Keynesianism and aggressor of the peoples , is simulating its own economy with enormous expenses in technology, armies and weapons for aggression and wars.

For neoliberal extremism, economic globalization and the single currency are good, not because they integrate the entire population, but because they express the maximum economic efficiency, identified with the maximum benefit of capital, selfish human nature and democracy. For this fanatical thought, crises only mean that society has not fully knelt before the natural laws of the market economy. From this it follows that, to overcome crises, it is necessary to increase the strength of the policies that produce them and the submission of their victims. The neoliberal dogma presents the social tides against inequality, poverty, hunger, machismo and violence as irrational and antidemocratic.

Twenty years ago the European Commission clarified the future of trade unionism in the euro: “The Monetary Union involves a global change in which the macroeconomic requirements are directed, clearly and credibly, towards the stability of the new currency.

This new macroeconomic framework will affect the way in which wages and employment conditions are set in the labor market. In the Monetary Union, as unions and employers realize that the possibility of devaluing national currencies no longer exists, wage agreements will vary accordingly. Therefore, in the hypothesis of completely adaptable rational unions, the appearance of a behavior on wages compatible with employment can be expected ”. This means: First, convergence is not economic but monetary. Wages, living and working conditions do not converge, but inflation, interest rates, public deficit and public debt. Second, the rationale is to abide by this. To pretend that people have a house and decent living and working conditions is an uneconomic and antidemocratic chimera. Third, if we accept the single currency, we accept inflation control, then wage and social income cannot be improved. Fourth, if we accept the single currency, we accept the containment of the public deficit, then the unemployed cannot receive an unconditional subsidy, nor can retirees maintain their pensions. Starting from here, trade unionism that struggles to improve the conditions of the people, without more, will be guilty of the loss of competitiveness and, therefore, of unemployment. Unemployment expenses will cause an increase in the public deficit, monetary instability and a rise in interest rates on the public debt, which will slow down investments and increase layoffs. For the ideology of the euro, the blame for the strike is on the trade unionists.

With the labor reform of 1997 and the subsequent reforms (signed by the large unions) of the Toledo Pact on Pensions of 1995, the government demonstrated that the lower cost of dismissal and the cut of pensions promote economic growth, job creation - albeit precarious - and price stability. By signing the Interconfederal Agreement in Defense of Employment of May 1997 and the Pension Reform of 2011, the signatory unions legitimized this reasoning. Since then, governments have the authority to move forward without unions. In an environment of economic crisis, maintaining growth, profits and employment requires improvements in productivity through the devaluation of the price of labor power through unemployment, precariousness and union submission. La izquierda mayoritaria part icipa de este mecanismo para descargar las inestabilidades del mercado sobre la gente trabajadora.
La izquierda mayoritaria se sustenta en algunas nociones que es necesario revisar. Desde el horizonte político de la moneda única, la compet it ividad y la globalización, es imposible hacer nada más que gest ionar la degradación de los derechos y libertades de las mayorías sociales. No impugnar la lógica del capital (globalización, euro, compet it ividad) sirve para legit imarse frente al poder económico, el Estado y una opinión pública conservadora y desmoralizada, pero también sirve para ser cada vez más dependiente de los recursos estatales y más ajenos a la organización del conflicto social. Cuando el capital se const ituye en el verdadero sujeto de las democracias de mercado y la izquierda hace como si no lo viera, es natural que los individuos compitan entre sí en una ciega carrera hacia los puestos de trabajo escasos, propiedad privada de los empresarios.

Al llegar la crisis, el verdadero activo de la izquierda mayoritaria era su integración en la lógica del capital a través del consumismo irracional de masas, la democracia delegada y el bienestar del Estado. Cuando, a manos de la propia socialdemocracia, desaparecen las condiciones económicas y polít icas que posibilitaban el pacto social la población, integrada en el modo de producción y consumo capitalista, carece de conciencia para ni siquiera desear una vida diferente a la producción y el consumo de mercancías. La mayoría de la clase obrera, pastoreada electoral y sindicalmente por la izquierda social-demócrata, confunde trabajo con empleo, consumo con despilfarro y bienestar con posesión. Se mofa de la austeridad y considera arcaicos a los campesinos.

Desconsidera la esquilmación de los países empobrecidos y la contaminación del aire, el agua y la tierra producto de sus propias formas de vida y trabajo. Con la crisis, se disuelven el empleo y el consumo como modo de pertenencia social para millones de personas. Estos daños carecen de una explicación solvente en el imaginario popular y se presentan como “naturales” e inevitables. Por eso los banqueros y polít icos culpables, se postulan como la solución. Sin la ident ificación del enemigo, las necesidades de la población no se pueden expresar mediante polít icas de izquierda transformadora, lo que genera desconfianza, individualismo y lucha entre los de abajo. Mientras tanto, los poderes fáct icos se preparan para la guerra contra el enemigo exterior e interior.

Desde dentro de este guión, la impotencia de la izquierda capitalista, en perpetua retroalimentación con su alejamiento del poder popular y su fascinación culpable por el poder –y el dinero– del Estado, solo puede sostenerse mediante adaptaciones sucesivas –siempre insuficientes- a los desastres de la compet it ividad y la economía financiera promovidas por las polít icas monetarias del Banco Central Europeo, piedra filosofal de la Europa del Euro. La monarquia neofranquista y el euro La instauración de la monarquía en 1975 permit ió que la clase polít ica y empresarial del franquismo ocuparan el aparato del estado y las organizaciones de la gran patronal, volviéndose formalmente democráticas. El tributo de la izquierda para aplacar a los militares golpistas e incluirse en el aparato del estado del nuevo régimen fue la cancelación del movimiento popular y el enfrentamiento con cualquier movimiento constituyente. La monarquía española representante de los poderes fáct icos procedentes de la dictadura se empleó a fondo en su incorporación a la Europa del Capital y a la OTAN, donde esperaba obtener -y ha obtenido- enormes beneficios. Veint isiete años después de la inclusión formal de España en la OTAN (1981) y en la Comunidad Europea (1986), el precio pagado es patente en términos de precariedad, involución democrát ica, corrupción política, contaminación, especulación y riesgo de vernos envueltos en las guerras imperialistas contra los pueblos en lucha o los estados desobedientes.

Las decisiones políticas que favorecen la seguridad para la inversión del capital se presentan como un límite infranqueable para las polít icas económicas y sociales. En los períodos de crecimiento económico, los nuevos contingentes laborales entran en el mercado de trabajo bajo condiciones ya precarizadas constantemente presionadas a la baja, en franco desafío a las promesas de libertad, igualdad, just icia y “estado social y democrát ico de derecho” que encabezan el artículo 1º de la Const itución. Ahora, la precariedad avanza incluso en los sectores más sindicalizados y regulados. La burocracia sindical consiente la represión de quienes ejercitan, desde abajo, los derechos fundamentales de negociación colect iva, expresión, reunión o sindicación.

Al mirar la izquierda hacia otro lado, conviviendo pacíficamente con la insurrección de las patronales, se naturaliza la inseguridad y se facilita la profundización de las diferencias entre estables y precarios lo que, a su vez, justifica la igualación “democrát ica” de todos por abajo.

El orden monetario implica el desorden social, ecológico y alimentario. El desorden y la inseguridad para millones de ciudadanos son el precio de un orden monetario a la medida de especuladores y políticos, que se llaman a sí mismos “los demócratas”. La izquierda, para hacerse respetable, interioriza este orden al considerar que el cumplimiento de los derechos de los trabajadores, las mujeres y los ciudadanos, debe incorporar, necesariamente, el aumento de los beneficios del capital. Cuando se estanca la economía, no se puede pedir justicia porque hay que salir de la crisis y cuando hay prosperidad, no se puede pedir igualdad porque se pone en peligro la cont inuidad del ciclo expansivo.

El orden capitalista de la dictadura (1939 – 1975) no se podría cuestionar porque lo impedían la Brigada Político Social y el Tribunal de Orden Público. Paradójicamente, el orden capitalista de la monarquía parlamentaria (1975 – 2013) tampoco, por el consenso del bipart idismo en torno a la Europa del Euro, el consumismo y la OTAN. Por un pacto democrático y social de las mayorías contra especuladores, corruptos y guerreros. Se desvanece el capitalismo con rostro humano en los países ricos de Europa. En Noviembre de 2011, la pinza PSOE-PP modificó el artículo 135 de la C.E. para impedir cualquier ley o decisión administrat iva que pudiera interferir con los intereses de los grandes grupos económicos.En nombre del euro, el Banco Central Europeo, el Fondo Monetario Internacional y la Comisión Europea (la Troika) imponen a los gobiernos el recorte de salarios y la mercant ilización de los derechos sociales. Pero estas políticas antipopulares no son capaces de react ivar la economía ni frenar el crecimiento del paro, la desigualdad y la exclusión.

El reformismo keynesiano de la izquierda mayoritaria ha resultado ser una efímera excepción, hoy impotente ante la economía competitiva y globalizada. La creación de plusvalor para el capital es cada día más autónoma del trabajo. El desorden económico, energét ico y ecológico produce grandes migraciones y confrontaciones armadas. En España, los sucesivos gobiernos de derechas y de izquierdas profundizan su compromiso con la OTAN y mant ienen, cada vez más act ivas las bases militares de 15 los Estados Unidos en nuestro territorio implicando a nuestro país en agresiones – legales e ilegales – contra los pueblos en lucha y los estados desobedientes. Por eso, la confianza popular en los polít icos y las inst ituciones "de mercado" está en caída libre y, las mareas de descontento cont ienen una creciente desafección respecto a la política, los part idos y sindicatos de mercado.

El bipartidismo que, en España, secuestra el pluralismo polít ico y sost iene una monarquía en descomposición y un nacionalismo español disfrazado de Estado de las Autonomías, se desmorona electoralmente. Para evitarlo, prepara un Gran Acuerdo Polít ico y Social inspirado en los Pactos de la Moncloa de 1977 cuyo saldo, treinta y seis años después, no puede ser más demoledor: desmovilización social, desembarco del franquismo en la joven democracia, especulación, corrupción polít ica, aumento de las diferencias y desmoralización ciudadana.

Hoy, nuevas formas de part icipación abren la posibilidad de evitar las catástrofes de la Europa del Capital, la Globalización y la Guerra, cambiando algo más que el part ido en el gobierno. Pero conviene no olvidar que la sustancia de la democracia es la autodeterminación popular y que el único pacto út il para el pueblo es la cooperación para superar los estertores de la economía de mercado y su monarquía mediante un proceso const ituyente por el trabajo digno, la economía social y sostenible, la seguridad y la soberanía alimentaria, la part icipación polít ica y la igualdad social entre hombres y mujeres.


Agustín Morán, Junio 2013.

Video: COVID-19 and the Future of Neoliberalism (June 2021).