Saturday, April 18, 2009



Armando Bartra

El mundo atraviesa por una crisis múltiple y unitaria cuyas sucesivas, paralelas o entreveradas manifestaciones configuran un periodo histórico de inédita turbulencia. Lo nuevo de la Gran crisis radica en la pluralidad de dimensiones que la conforman; emergencias globales mayores que devienen críticas precisamente por su origen común y convergencia:

Crisis medioambiental patente en un cambio climático antropogénico que avanza más rápido de lo que se previó a principios de 2007, hace apenas dos años, pero también en la desertización, deforestación, estrés hídrico, deterioro de los mares, erosión acelerada de la biodiversidad y contaminación de aire, suelo y agua dulce (Unesco, La Jornada 9/2/08).

Crisis energética evidenciada en patrones de consumo insostenibles, pues –en un dispendio que es causante mayor del cambio climático– durante la última centuria empleamos más energía que durante toda la historia anterior, pero visible igualmente en el progresivo agotamiento de los combustibles fósiles y en la paulatina reducción de su eficiencia energética (Agencia Internacional de Energía, World Energy Outloock, 2006).

Crisis alimentaria manifiesta en hambrunas y carestía causadas por el creciente uso no directamente alimentario de algunas cosechas (empleo en forrajes y biocombustibles), por el estancamiento de la productividad cerealera que por casi cinco décadas dinamizó la llamada Revolución Verde y por la especulación resultante del oligopolio trasnacional que domina en la rama (FAO, Informe, septiembre 2008).

Crisis migratoria documentada por el éxodo de origen multifactorial, cuyo saldo hasta ahora ha sido más de 200 millones de personas viviendo fuera de su país natal, pero también por la criminalización que los transterrados sin documentos padecen en los lugares de destino y por la erosión de las comunidades de origen y la desarticulación de sus estrategias productivas de solidaridad intergeneracional.

Crisis bélica dramatizada por las prolongadas y cruentas guerras coloniales de ocupación y resistencia que sacuden Chechenia (desde 1994), Palestina, Afganistán (desde 2001), Irak (desde 2003); motivadas por la pretensión de controlar espacios y recursos estratégicos por parte de las potencias globales y de algunas regionales.

Crisis económica desatada por la debacle de un sistema financiero desmecatado que mediante apalancamientos sin sustento pospuso la larvada crisis de sobreproducción; descalabro que se ha extendido a la economía material ocasionando masiva destrucción de capital redundante y de ahí a la vida real donde arrasa con el patrimonio de las personas.

Encrucijada civilizatoria

La Gran crisis es sistémica y no coyuntural porque no sólo desfonda el modelo neoliberal imperante durante los pasados 30 años, también pone en cuestión el modo capitalista de producir y socava las bases mismas de la sociedad industrial.

Si –como Braudel– llamamos civilización occidental a un orden espacialmente globalizante, socialmente industrial, económicamente capitalista, culturalmente híbrido, intelectualmente racionalista y que históricamente se define por su lucha sin fin contra la civilización tradicional (a la que nunca vence del todo porque ésta se le resiste tanto desde fuera como desde dentro), la presente es –en sentido estricto– una crisis civilizatoria (Fernand Braudel. Las civilizaciones actuales. Estudio de historia económica y social. REI, México, 1994, p. 12-46).

La magnitud del atolladero en que nos encontramos evidencia la imposibilidad de sostener el modelo inspirador del capitalismo salvaje de las últimas décadas. Pero también resulta impresentable un sistema económico que no es capaz de satisfacer las necesidades básicas de la mayoría y, sin embargo, periódicamente tiene que autodestruir su capacidad productiva sobrante. Y cómo no poner en entredicho a la civilización industrial cuando la debacle ambiental y energética da cuenta de la sustantiva insostenibilidad de un modo de producir y consumir que hoy por hoy devora 25 por ciento más recursos de los que la naturaleza puede reponer.

Los órdenes civilizatorios no se desvanecen de un día para otro y tanto la duración como el curso de la Gran crisis son impredecibles. Pero si bien el presente evento patológico podría, quizá, ser superado por el capitalismo, la enfermedad sistémica es definitivamente terminal. Todo indica que protagonizamos un fin de fiesta, un tránsito epocal posiblemente prolongado, pues lo que está en cuestión son estructuras profundas, relaciones sociales añejas, comportamientos humanos de larga duración, inercias seculares.

Otra vez la escasez

Vista en su integridad la presente es una clásica crisis de escasez patente en la devastación del entorno socioecológico operada por las fuerzas productivo-destructivas del sistema. Y es que detrás de la abundancia epidérmica de un capitalismo que se las da de opulento, pues por cada dos personas que nacen se fabrica un coche, de modo que la humanidad entera cabría sentada en los más de mil millones que conforman el parque vehicular, se oculta la más absoluta depauperación. Un empobrecimiento radical patente en la extrema degradación del entorno humano-natural, que nos tiene al borde de la extinción como especie.

Con su secuela de carestía y rebeliones, las crisis de escasez no han dejado de ocurrir periódicamente en diferentes puntos del tercer mundo. Pero el primero se ufanaba de que después de 1846-48 en que hubo hambruna en Europa, las emergencias agrícolas propias del viejo régimen habían quedado atrás. Parece que la industrialización ha roto a finales del siglo XVIII y en el XIX, este círculo vicioso, escribe Braudel al respecto (Fernand Braudel, ibid, p. 30). No fue así. Menos de dos siglos después del despegue del capitalismo fabril la emergencia por escasez resultante del cambio climático provocado por la industrialización amenaza con asolar al mundo entero.

La carestía alimentaria reciente no es aún como las del viejo régimen, pues, pese a que han reducido severamente, por el momento quedan reservas globales para paliar hambrunas localizadas. En cambio se les asemeja enormemente la crisis medioambiental desatada por el calentamiento planetario. Sólo que la penuria de nuestro tiempo no tendrá carácter local o regional, sino global y la escasez será de alimentos, pero también de otros básicos como agua potable, tierra cultivable, recursos pesqueros y cinegéticos, espacio habitable, energía, vivienda, medicamentos...

Los pronósticos del Panel Internacional para el Cambio Climático (PICC) de la ONU son inquietantemente parecidos a las descripciones de las crisis agrícolas de la Edad Media: mortandad, hambre, epidemias, saqueos, conflictos por los recursos, inestabilidad política, éxodo. Lo que cambia es la escala, pues si las penurias precapitalistas ocasionaban migraciones de hasta cientos de miles, se prevé que la crisis ambiental causada por el capitalismo deje un saldo de 200 millones de ecorrefugiados, los primeros 50 millones en el plazo de 10 años; se estima que para 2050 habrá mil millones de personas con severos problemas de acceso al agua dulce; y la elevación del nivel de los mares para el próximo siglo, que hace dos años el PICC pronosticó en 59 centímetros, hoy se calcula que será de un metro y afectará directamente a 600 millones de personas.

En los pasados cuatro años 115 millones se sumaron a los desnutridos y hoy uno de cada seis seres humanos está hambriento. Pero en el contexto de la crisis de escasez, que amenaza repetir el libreto de las viejas crisis agrícolas, enfrentamos un severo margallate económico del tipo de los que padece periódicamente el sistema: una crisis de las que llaman de sobreproducción o más adecuadamente de subconsumo.

Estrangulamiento por abundancia, irracional en extremo, pues la destrucción de productos excedentes, el desmantelamiento de capacidad productiva redundante y el despido de trabajadores sobrantes coincide con un incremento de las necesidades básicas de la población que se encuentran insatisfechas. Así, mientras que por la crisis de las hipotecas inmobiliarias en Estados Unidos miles de casas desocupadas muestran el letrero de Sale, cientos de nuevos pobres, saldo de la recesión, habitan en tiendas de campaña sumándose a los ya tradicionales homeless. Y los ejemplos podrían multiplicarse.

El contraste entre la presunta capacidad excesiva del sistema y las carencias de la gente será aun mayor en el futuro, en la medida en que se profundicen los efectos del cambio climático. Agravamiento por demás inevitable, pues el medioambiental es un desbarajuste de incubación prolongada cuyo despliegue será duradero por más que hagamos para atenuarlo.

Hay quienes ven en la conmoción que padecemos una redición del crack de 1929. Pero no, el presente no es un tropiezo productivo más entre los muchos de los que está empedrado el ciclo económico. La de hoy es una debacle civilizatoria por cuanto balconea sin atenuantes el pecado original del gran dinero; la irracionalidad profunda del modo de producción capitalista, pero también del orden social, político y espiritual en torno a él edificado.

Y este talón de Aquiles sistémico va más allá de que al reducirse relativamente el capital variable tanto por elevación de la composición orgánica como por la tendencia a minimizar salarios, se reduzca tendencialmente la tasa de ganancia y a la vez la posibilidad de hacerla efectiva realizando el producto. Ciertamente la contradicción económica interna del capitalismo, formulada por Marx hace siglo y medio, estrangula cíclicamente el proceso de acumulación, ocasiona crisis periódicas –hasta ahora manejables– y, según los apocalípticos sostenedores de la teoría del derrumbe, algún día provocará la debacle definitiva del sistema. Pero este pleito del capital consigo mismo es sólo la expresión entripada –económica– del antagonismo entre el gran dinero y el mundo natural-social al que depreda.

La contradicción ontológica del capitalismo no hay que buscarla en los tropiezos que sufre el valor de cambio para valorizarse, sino en el radical desencuentro entre el valor de cambio autorregulado y el valor de uso; en el antagonismo que existe entre la lógica que el lucro le impone a la producción económica y la racionalidad propia de la reproducción social-natural del hombre y los ecosistemas. Sin obviar –por sabido– el agravio canónico que siempre se le ha imputado al gran dinero: una soez desigualdad por la que en el arranque del tercer milenio los dos deciles más bonancibles de las familias poseen 75 por ciento de la riqueza, mientras en el otro extremo los dos deciles más depauperados apenas disponen de 2 por ciento.

Recesión y sobreproducción

Las perturbaciones endógenas del capitalismo fueron estudiadas de antiguo por Smith, Say, Ricardo y Stuart Mill, quienes pensaban que el sistema procura su propio equilibrio, y por Malthus, Lauderdale y Sismondi, quienes aceptaban la posibilidad de trombosis mayores. Pero fue Marx quien sentó las bases de la teoría de las crisis económicas, al establecer que la cuota general de plusvalía tiene necesariamente que traducirse en una cuota general de ganancia decreciente (pues) la masa de trabajo vivo empleada disminuye constantemente en proporción la masa de trabajo materializado (Carlos Marx. El capital. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, 1965. Volumen III, p. 215).

Ahora bien, la disminución relativa del capital variable y, adicionalmente, la posible desproporción entre las ramas de la economía, pueden crear también problemas en el ámbito de la realización de la plusvalía mediante la venta de las mercancías, operación que, según Marx, se ve limitada por la proporcionalidad entre las distintas ramas de la producción y por la capacidad de consumo de la sociedad (constreñida por) las condiciones antagónicas de distribución que reducen el consumo de la gran masa de la sociedad a un mínimo (Ibid, p. 243). La primera de estas líneas de investigación inspiró a Tugan-Baranowsky, quien desarrolló la teoría de las crisis por desproporción, mientras que Conrad Schmidt exploró los problemas del subconsumo.

Después de la Gran Depresión de los años 30 del siglo pasado, Baran y Sweezy plantearon la tendencia creciente de los excedentes y consecuente dificultad para realizarlos. “No hay forma de evitar la conclusión de que el capitalismo monopolista es un sistema contradictorio en sí mismo –escriben–. Tiende a crear aun más excedentes y sin embargo es incapaz de proporcionar al consumo y a la inversión las salidas necesarias para la absorción de los crecientes excedentes y por tanto para el funcionamiento uniforme del sistema” (Paul A. Baran, Paul M. Sweezy. El capital monopolista. Siglo XXI Editores, México, 1968, p. 90).

Pero Marx vislumbró también algunas posibles salidas a los periódicos atolladeros en que se mete el capital. “La contradicción interna –escribió– tiende a compensarse mediante la expansión del campo externo de la producción” (Carlos Marx. Ibid, p. 243). Opción que parecía evidente en tiempos de expansión colonial, pero que una centuria después, en plena etapa imperialista, seguía resultando una explicación sugerente y fue desarrollada por Rosa Luxemburgo, al presentar la ampliación permanente del sistema sobre su periferia, como una suerte de huida hacia delante para escapar de las crisis de subconsumo apelando a mercados externos de carácter precapitalista. “El capital no puede desarrollarse sin los medios de producción y fuerzas de trabajo del planeta entero –escribe la autora de La acumulación de capital–. Para desplegar sin obstáculos el movimiento de acumulación, necesita los tesoros naturales y las fuerzas de trabajo de toda la tierra. Pero como éstas se encuentran, de hecho, en su gran mayoría, encadenadas a formas de producción precapitalistas (...) surge aquí el impulso irresistible del capital a apoderarse de aquellos territorios y sociedades” (Rosa Luxemburgo. La acumulación de capital. Editorial Grijalbo, México, 1967, p. 280). Esta línea de ideas sobrevivió a la circunstancia que le dio origen y ha generado planteamientos como el que propone la existencia en el capitalismo de una acumulación primitiva permanente, y más recientemente el de acumulación por despojo, acuñado por David Harvey (David Harvey. Espacios del capital. Hacia una geografía crítica. Akal, Madrid, 2007).

No menos relevante es explicarse el desarrollo cíclico de la acumulación y por tanto la condición recurrente de las crisis del capitalismo. Análisis que –por ejemplo– permitió a Kondratiev predecir el descalabro de 1929 (Nikolai Dimitrievich Kondratiev. Los ciclos largos de la coyuntura económica. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, UNAM, México, 1992), que posteriormente fue desarrollado por Schumpeter, entre otros, y que Mandel ubica en el contexto de las llamadas ondas largas (Ernest Mandel. Las ondas largas del desarrollo capitalista. La interpretación marxista. Siglo XXI Editores, Madrid, 1986).

El pecado original

Como se ve, mucha tinta ha corrido sobre el tema de las crisis económicas del capitalismo. Y no es para menos, pues algunos piensan que en la radicalidad de sus contradicciones internas radica el carácter perecedero y transitorio de un sistema que sus apologistas quisieran definitivo, además de que –en los hechos– las crisis de sobreproducción han sido recurrentes (1857, 1864-66, 1873-77, 1890-93, 1900, 1907, 1913, 1920-22, 1929-32, 1977, 1987, 1991, 1997, 2008-?). Sin embargo, la irracionalidad básica del sistema no está en los problemas de acumulación que enfrenta; sus contradicciones económicas internas no son las más lacerantes, y si algún día el capitalismo deja paso a un orden más amable y soleado no será por obra de sus periódicas crisis de sobreproducción, sino como resultado del hartazgo de sus víctimas, sin duda alimentado por los estragos que ocasiona la recesión, pero también por otros agravios sociales, ambientales y morales igualmente graves.

Abismarse en la crisis de sobreproducción, sobre todo hoy que enfrentamos una poliédrica debacle civilizatoria, es una forma de dejarse llevar por la dictadura de la economía propia del capitalismo, es una manifestación más de los poderes fetichistas de la mercancía, pero en este caso disfrazada de pensamiento crítico, aunque también es un ejemplo de imprudente autosuficiencia disciplinaria.

Y no es que el análisis económico no proceda, al contrario, es necesarísimo, siempre y cuando se reconozca que se trata de un pensamiento instrumental, una reflexión siempre pertinente pero que no suple al discurso radicalmente contestatario que la magnitud de la crisis demanda. Y en esto sigo a Marx, el padre de gran parte de la teoría económica crítica. El autor del El capital consideraba fundamental el descubrimiento de la ley de la tendencia decreciente de la cuota de ganancia, pues en ella el capitalismo encuentra su límite, su relatividad, el hecho de que este tipo de producción no es un régimen absoluto, sino un régimen puramente histórico, un sistema de producción que corresponde a una cierta época (Carlos Marx, El capital, p. 256). Pero para él esto no significaba que el capitalismo será llevado a su límite histórico por obra de dicha contradicción. Y es que este límite “se revela aquí de un modo puramente económico –escribe Marx–, es decir, desde el punto de vista burgués, dentro de los horizontes de la inteligencia capitalista, desde el punto de vista de la producción capitalista misma” (Carlos Marx, ibid).

Contradicciones endógenas y contradicciones exógenas. El riesgo está en que la erosión que el capital ejerce periódicamente sobre el propio capital oscurezca la devastación que ejerce permanentemente sobre la sociedad y sobre la naturaleza; en que el debate acerca de las contradicciones internas del mercantilismo absoluto relegue la discusión sobre sus contradicciones externas.

Tensiones verificables en una ciencia sofisticada pero reduccionista y una tecnología poderosa pero insostenible, en el compulsivo y contaminante consumo energético, en el irracional y paralizante empleo del espacio y el tiempo, en la corrosión de los recursos naturales y la biodiversidad pero también de las sociedades tradicionales y de sus culturas, en una exclusión económico-social que rebasa con mucho el proverbial ejército industrial de reserva, en estampidas poblacionales que no pueden justificarse como virtuoso autoajuste del mercado de trabajo. Todos ellos, desastres exógenos a los que se añaden desgarriates directamente asociados con la explotación económica del trabajo por el capital, como las abismales y crecientes diferencias sociales; además de los ramalazos provenientes de los periódicos estrangulamientos económicos, tales como la desvalorización y destrucción de la capacidad productiva excedente –lo que incluye a los medios de producción pero también al trabajo–, la aniquilación del ahorro y el patrimonio de las personas, etcétera.

Pero todas estas no son más que manifestaciones de la irracionalidad sustantiva, del pecado original del gran dinero; de la voltereta por la cual el mercado dejó de ser un medio para devenir fin en sí mismo; del revolcón por el que el valor de cambio se impuso al valor de uso y la cantidad a la calidad. Un vuelco trascendente por el que el trabajo muerto se montó sobre el trabajo vivo y las cosas acogotaron al hombre. Una inversión civilizatoria por la que el futuro fetichizado sustituyó al pasado como único dotador de sentido y el mito del progreso nos unció a la historia, como bueyes a una carreta.

Mercantilizando lo que no. A mediados del siglo pasado Karl Polanyi (La gran transformación, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, 2003) sostuvo que la capacidad destructiva del molino satánico capitalista radica en que su irrefrenable compulsión lucrativa lo lleva a tratar como mercancías al hombre y la naturaleza –que proverbialmente no lo son– pero también al dinero, que en rigor es un medio de pago y no un producto entre otros. La primera conversión perversa conduce a la devastación de la sociedad y de los ecosistemas, la segunda desemboca en un mercado financiero sobredimensionado y especulativo que tiende a imponerse sobre la economía real. Años después, otros hemos abundado sobre la contradicción externa que supone la transformación del hombre y la naturaleza en mercancías ficticias (James O’Connor, Causas naturales; ensayos de marxismo ecológico, Siglo XXI, México, 2001, pp. 191-212; Armando Bartra, El hombre de hierro; límites sociales y naturales del capital, Editorial Itaca, UAM-UACM, México, 2008, pp. 79, 80).


La decadencia del sistema corroe las entidades que lo soportan y también las vacía de significado. Modernidad, progreso, desarrollo, palabras entrañables que convocaban apasionadas militancias, hoy se ahuecan si no es que adquieren carga irónica.

La convergencia de flagelos objetivos de carácter económico, ambiental, energético, migratorio, alimentario y bélico que en el arranque del tercer milenio agrava y encona las abismales desigualdades socioeconómicas consustanciales al sistema, deviene potencial crisis civilizatoria porque encuentra un terreno abonado por factores subjetivos: un estado de ánimo de profundo escepticismo y generalizada incredulidad, un ambiente espiritual de descreimiento en los ídolos de una modernidad que en el fondo nos defraudó a todos: a los poseedores y a los desposeídos, a los urbanos y a los rurales, a los metropolitanos y a los orilleros, a los defensores del capitalismo y a los impulsores del socialismo; que defraudó incluso a sus opositores, las sociedades tradicionales que denodadamente la resistieron.

La locomotora de la historia.La gran promesa de la modernidad: conducirnos a una sociedad que al prescindir de toda trascendencia metafísica y apelar sólo a la razón nos haría libres, sabios, opulentos y felices, comenzó a pasar aceite desde hace rato. Por un tiempo, creer en la regularidad cognoscible y operable de un mundo natural-social definitivamente desencantado, fue dogma de fe en un orden que al estar presidido por la razón técnico-económico-administrativa creía haber prescindido de toda ideología de sustento trascendente y por ello de toda fe. Pero la convicción no era suficiente, hacía falta también la inclinación afectiva, la militancia: Hay que querer y amar la modernidad, escribió Touraine (Alan Touraine. Crítica de la modernidad, Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires, 1998, p. 65). Y afiliarse a la modernidad era enrolarse en el progreso. En palabras de Touraine: Creer en el progreso significa amar al futuro, a la vez ineluctable y radiante (Ibid, p. 68).

Fatal y seductor como una vampiresa, el futuro fue fetiche tanto del progresismo burgués como del revolucionarismo proletario, pero por diferentes vías y con distintos ritmos los altares de la modernidad fueron paulatinamente desertados. Las elites metropolitanas que durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX vieron hacerse realidad muchas de las premisas del paraíso prometido, pero sin que las acompañara la añorada plenitud, cultivaron un posmodernismo desilusionado, donde la subjetividad se desafana del flujo sin sentido del mundo. Después de un esperanzado pero efímero coqueteo con la democracia occidental, los damnificados del socialismo realmente existente desplegaron una desmodernidad pragmática que pasa tanto de las promesas de la sociedad sin clases como de las del mundo libre. Los pueblos originarios, largo tiempo negados o sometidos, reivindicaron identidades de raíz premoderna.

Añoranzas. Sin embargo la modernidad y el progreso no son del todo perros muertos, pues su versión tercermundista, el proverbial desarrollo, conserva aún gran parte de su capacidad de seducción. En unos casos bajo su forma clásica o desarrollista, en otros como socialismo del siglo XXI y en otros más como altermundismo, las dos últimas, variantes de lo que algunos han llamado modernidad-otra.

Y es que aquellos que siempre vimos de lejos las glorias de la modernidad, preservamos por más tiempo la esperanza en un desarrollo que –algún día– deberá equipararnos a las naciones primermundistas. Promesa ahora aún más difícil de cumplir, pues en los tiempos que corren habría que emprender el vuelo con alimentos y petróleo caros, mientras que los que despegaron antes lo hicieron con energía y alimentos baratos. Y aspiración en el fondo dudosa, pues cuando menos en algunos aspectos las admiradas metrópolis resultaron sociedades tan inhóspitas como las otras. Pero, pese a todo, en las orillas del mundo muchos siguen esperando acceder a las mieles de la modernidad (y si de plano no hay tales, cuando menos al chance de ser posmodernos con conocimiento de causa).

Tan es así que en el derrumbe del neoliberalismo y el descrédito de sus recetas, reaparecen con fuerza en la periferia el neonacionalismo desarrollista y la renovada apelación al Estado gestor. Nada sorprendente, cuando a los países centrales sacudidos por la megacrisis no se les ocurre remedio mejor que un neokeynesianismo más o menos ambientalista.

Que los zagueros de la periferia, los desposeídos de siempre y los damnificados de la Gran crisis sigan apelando a las fórmulas que demostraron su bondad en las añoradas décadas de la posguerra, cuando en las metrópolis el Estado benefactor gestionaba la opulencia, en el llamado bloque socialista había crecimiento con equidad y los populismos del tercer mundo procuraban a sus clientelas salud, educación, empleo industrial y reforma agraria, me parece poco menos que inevitable. Y es que en el arranque de las grandes transformaciones, los pueblos y sus personeros acostumbran mirar hacia atrás en busca de inspiración.

Podemos esperar, sin embargo, que el neomilenarismo sea una fase transitoria y breve. Por un rato seguiremos poniendo vino nuevo en odres viejos, pero en la medida en que la Gran crisis vaya removiendo lo que restaba de las rancias creencias, es de esperarse que surja un modo renovado de estar en el mundo. Un nuevo orden material y espiritual donde algo quedará del antiguo ideal de modernidad y al que sin duda también aportaran las aún más añejas sociedades tradicionales que no se fueron del todo con la finta del progreso.

Hay dos visiones generales del recambio civilizacional al que nos orilla la Gran crisis: la de quienes siguen pensando, como los socialistas de antes, que en el seno del capitalismo han madurado los elementos productivos de una nueva y más justa sociedad que habrá de sustituirlo mediante un gran vuelco global, y la de quienes vislumbran un paulatino –o abrupto– proceso de deterioro y desagregación, una suerte de hundimiento del Titanic civilizatorio al que sobrevivirán lanchones sociales dispersos. La primera opción, una versión socialista o altermundista de las promesas del Progreso, ha sido objetada por visionarios como Samir Amin e Immanuel Wallerstein, para quienes la historia enseña que la conversión de un sistema agotado a otro sistema contenido en germen en el anterior ha consistido en pasar de un orden inicuo a otro, de un clasismo a otro clasismo, de modo que la decadencia o desintegración son más deseables que una transición controlada (Immanuel Wallerstein, Impensar las ciencias sociales. Editorial Siglo XXI, México 1998, p. 27). El hecho es que –mientras vemos si cambiamos de timonel o de plano hundimos el barco– en las últimas décadas proliferó en las costuras del sistema un neoutopismo autogestionario hecho a mano que busca construir y articular plurales manchones de resistencia, tales como economías solidarias, autonomías indígenas y toda suerte de colectivos en red. Estrategia que tiene la posmoderna virtud de que no parte de un nuevo paradigma de aplicación presuntamente universal, sino que adopta la forma de una convergencia de múltiples praxis (Euclides André Mance, Redes de colaboración solidaria. Aspectos económico filosóficos: complejidad y liberación. Universidad de la Ciudad de México, México, 2006. Boaventura de Sousa Santos y César Rodríguez, Para ampliar el canon de la producción en Desarrollo, eurocentrismo y economía popular. Más allá del paradigma neoliberal. Ministerio para la Economía Popular, Caracas, 2006).

El sujeto. Sin sujeto no hay crisis que valga. Los desórdenes que socavan al neoliberalismo, al capitalismo en cuanto tal, a la propia sociedad industrial y al imaginario de la modernidad conformarán una crisis civilizatoria si, y sólo si, las víctimas asumimos el reto de convertir el magno tropezón sistémico en encrucijada societaria. Los tronidos y rechinidos de la máquina de vivir y el descarrilamiento de la locomotora productiva plantean preguntas acuciantes, interrogantes perentorios, pero la respuesta está en nosotros.

Jürgen Habermas nos recuerda que tanto en la medicina como en la dramaturgia clásica el término crisis se refería al punto de inflexión de un proceso fatal y aun si en las disciplinas en que el concepto debutó el curso de la enfermedad o del destino se imponían, la noción de crisis “es inseparable –dice Habermas– de la percepción interior de quien la padece”, de la existencia de un sujeto cuya voluntad de vivir o de ser libre están en juego. “Dentro de la orientación objetivista –continúa– no se presentan los sistemas como sujetos; pero sólo éstos (...) pueden verse envueltos en crisis. Sólo cuando los miembros de la sociedad experimentan los cambios de estructura como críticos para el patrimonio sistémico y sienten amenazada su identidad social, podemos hablar de crisis” (Jürgen Habermas, Problemas de legitimación en el capitalismo tardío. Amorrortu Editores, Buenos Aires, 1975, p. 15-18).

Primeras insurgencias. A mediados de 2008 tuvimos un evento de la crisis alimentaria porque a resultas de la carestía de los granos básicos se presentaron emergencias sociales contestatarias en más de 30 países, entre ellos Argentina, Armenia, Bolivia, Camerún, Costa de Marfil, Chile, Egipto, Etiopía, Filipinas, Madagascar, México, Pakistán, Perú, Somalia, Sudán, Tajikistán, Uganda, Venezuela. Movilizaciones que en el caso de Haití, donde el precio del arroz se duplicó en una semana, dejaron varios muertos, decenas de heridos y la caída del gobierno. Los desórdenes ambientales, que por su propia índole son de despliegue relativamente lento y duradero, han ido configurando una crisis con el surgimiento del movimiento ambientalista en la segunda mitad del siglo pasado. Los éxodos trasnacionales y la creciente presencia de migrantes indocumentados en las metrópolis pasaron de dato demográfico a crisis social cuando 3 millones de personas, mayormente transterradas de origen latino, se movilizaron en las principales ciudades de Estados Unidos en defensa de sus derechos. Y la crisis económica es crisis económica, no tanto porque hay semblantes angustiados en la bolsa de valores cuando caen el Dow Jones o el Nikei, como porque millones de personas aquejadas por el desempleo, las deudas y la pérdida de su patrimonio comienzan a manifestarse en la calle, como sucedió en las masivas jornadas de protesta y en defensa de los puestos de trabajo y la capacidad adquisitiva del salario, escenificadas en Francia el 29 de enero y el 19 de marzo de 2009.

Y es que las crisis convocan al pensamiento crítico y la acción contestataria. O, mejor dicho, el desarreglo sistémico deviene crisis en la medida en que involucra la praxis de los sujetos. Protagonistas del drama que son a la vez constituidos y constituyentes de la crisis.

En esta perspectiva, la debacle ambiental, alimentaria, energética y migratoria, a la que hoy se añade la depresión económica, conforman una crisis sistémica en tanto han congregado ya una amplísima gama de discursos cuestionadores que ven en ella el fin de la fase neoliberal del capitalismo. Pero en este diálogo se escuchan igualmente las voces de quienes pensamos que la devastación que nos rodea resulta del pecado original del gran dinero: la conversión en mercancía de un orden humano-natural que no puede reproducirse con base en la lógica de la ganancia; de quienes creemos que si para salvarse de sus propios demonios el capitalismo deja definitivamente de ser un sistema de mercado autorregulado, también deja de ser capitalismo y entonces el reto es desarrollar nuevas formas de autorregulación social; de quienes sostenemos que lo que se desfondó en el tránsito de los milenios no es sólo un mecanismo de acumulación, sino también la forma material de producir y consumir a él asociada, el sistema científico tecnológico y la visión prometeica del progreso en que deriva, el sentido fatalista y unilineal de la historia que lo sostiene...

Si, a la postre, éstas son las percepciones dominantes, entonces –y no antes– estaremos ante una crisis civilizatoria.

Liberal Democrat donor Sudir Choudhrie accused of brokering Israeli arms deal

London-based Indian businessman denies claims of massive illegal kickbacks


One of the Liberal Democrats' most generous donors has been accused of accepting tens of millions of pounds in kickbacks from an arms deal between an Israeli company and the Indian government.

Sudhir Choudhrie, who has personally donated £95,000 to the party and whose relatives' companies have donated a further £475,000, was named as a key arms broker in foreign reports.


Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg outside the Houses of Parliament. Photograph: Luke MacGregor/Reuters


The allegations have been rejected by Choudhrie, an Indian citizen based in Chelsea, west London. A source close to the family denies that he has ever profited from the arms industry.

This is the second time that Choudhrie, 59, has been accused of being paid an illegal commission from a major arms deal in India. The allegations are said to be politically motivated, and to coincide with the country's general election.

The timing of the allegations is embarrassing for Nick Clegg, the party leader, who called for a curb of the arms trade and a boycott of sales of arms to Israel earlier this year. The claims that one of their donors is an arms broker will concern senior Liberal Democrats, who are still smarting from the exposure of their biggest ever donor, Michael Brown, as a convicted serial fraudster in 2006.

The party may yet be forced by the Electoral Commission to pay back £2.4m it received from Brown's non-trading company, 5th Avenue Partners, and is awaiting the outcome of an inquiry.

The Mumbai-based newspaper DNA has alleged that Choudhrie was paid a share of £80.5m in illegal business charges from the sale of medium-range surface-to-air missiles by an Israeli company to the Indian government.

Payments were supposedly part of a £1.3bn deal struck in January between the Indian defence ministry and the arms company Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), DNA claimed. The use of middle men to facilitate an arms deal is banned under Indian law. Choudhrie was also named as a key broker between the Israel defence industry and India by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz

Indian police are investigating the deal, according to media reports. The businessman was previously implicated in a police inquiry into kickbacks from another Indian arms deal with the same Israeli company, in 2006, but Choudhrie was not charged with any offence.

An Indian Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry revealed that Choudhrie and his companies "received a number of suspected remittances to the tune of millions of dollars from IAI Israel during the year 1998 to 2001". It suggested that IAI had a close relationship with two of Choudhrie's companies - Magnum International Trading Co and Eureka Sales Corporation.

Sources close to the family believe that Choudhrie is the victim of a campaign to discredit him. "These allegations, as well as the ones from earlier, are completely and utterly unfounded. He has never been involved in arms deals of any sort," said a source.

"He did have a role in Magnum but the company was involved in the export of tea and car parts, while Eureka was involved in building ships in Singapore. The confusion may have arisen because an Israeli company that Magnum once had business links with later became an arms company," he added.

Choudhrie is believed to have moved to Britain in 2002 with his wife and lives in a £4m apartment in Chelsea. He first donated £50,000 to the Lib Dems in August 2006 and has followed this up with payments of £25,000 and £20,000.

Two companies controlled by Choudhrie's son Bhanu and his nephew Dhruv - Alpha Healthcare and C&C Business Solutions - have donated a total of £475,000 to the Lib Dems.

Choudhrie and his son are known to be non domiciled for tax purposes and base many of their business interests in tax havens, where businesses do not have to declare their accounts publicly.

A Lib Dem spokesman declined to comment.

Iran jails US journalist Roxana Saberi as spy

Diplomatic row breaks out as Iranian-American reporter Roxana Saberi threatens to go on hunger strike after eight-year sentence


An Iranian-American journalist, Roxana Saberi, was sentenced to eight years in prison yesterday by the Iranian authorities after being found guilty of spying for the United States.

The jailing of Saberi - a freelance who has worked for the BBC - seems certain to deepen tensions between America and Iran following indications that, with Barack Obama in the White House, relations might finally be thawing.

The BBC voiced extreme concern at the "severe sentence".


Jailed US-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi taking footage in Tehran

US-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi, who has just been jailed as a spy in Iran for eight years, taking footage in Tehran. BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images) Photograph: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images


Last night Saberi threatened to go on hunger strike to protest against her conviction. The threat, conveyed by her father, Reza Saberi, follows her conviction after a trial in camera that began last Monday and lasted a single day. "She is quite depressed and wants to go on hunger strike," he said, adding that he was trying to persuade her not to.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has demanded that the former Miss North Dakota, who had been working in Iran as a freelance journalist, be released.

Saberi, aged 31, has been held in the notorious Evin prison on the northern edges of Tehran since her arrest. The espionage charges were announced last week. The US said that the allegations were "baseless and without foundation". Saberi, 31, is a citizen of both the United States and Iran, but Tehran does not recognise dual nationality.

"She has been sentenced to eight years ... I will appeal," her lawyer, Abdolsamad Khorramshahi, said. The journalist's parents have travelled to Iran to help win their daughter's release.

The interrogation, charging and trial of Saberi have been played out in a series of short press conferences and statements with Saberi herself, and the officials who heard her case, all but invisible. "Apparently the court has heard her final defence, but I will announce further reports in the next session," spokesman Alireza Jamshidi told reporters last week, according to an Iranian wire service. "She is charged with spying for foreigners. Her case was heard and an indictment has been issued."

Saberi, a graduate of the Northwestern University journalism school who grew up in Fargo, North Dakota, was arrested in late January after living and working in Iran for six years as a journalist, two of them without official accreditation. She has been accused of collecting information from Iranian officials to pass to US intelligence agencies.

According to an earlier statement from the judge, Sohrab Heydarifard: "[Saberi] has been coming and going to certain government circles under the cover of reporter and without a permit. And, through the contacts that she has made with certain employees of these government organisations, she has perpetrated actions to compile and gather information and documents and transferred them to American intelligence services."

According to her family, Saberi herself thought originally that she had been arrested for buying bootleg wine. Last month, however, an Iranian official, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi, seemed to suggest that Saberi had been arrested because she had been working in Iran - which tightly controls the media - despite having had her press permit revoked.

The claims of espionage only emerged last week on the eve of her trial. Then Hassan Haddad, deputy chief prosecutor at the Revolutionary Court, claimed that Saberi had admitted the charges.

The Obama administration has said it wants to engage Iran in talks on its nuclear programme and other issues. Iran's hardline president last week said the Islamic republic was also willing to have a new relationship. But on Thursday the State Department said Saberi's jailing was not helpful and that Iran would gain US goodwill if it "responded in a positive way" to the case.



Curb Aids and HIV by decriminalising drugs, say experts


The use of illicit drugs must be decriminalised if efforts to halt the spread of Aids are to succeed, one of the world's leading independent authorities on the disease has warned.

In an unprecedented attack on global drugs policy, Michele Kazatchkine, head of the influential Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, has told the Observer that, without a radical overhaul of laws that lead to hundreds of thousands of drug users being imprisoned or denied access to safe treatment, the millions of pounds spent on fighting HIV and Aids will be wasted.


Aids and HIV worldwideView larger picture

Aids and HIV worldwide. Photograph: Cat Davison/Pete Guest


Kazatchkine will use his keynote speech at the 20th International Harm Reduction Association conference tomorrow in Bangkok to expose the failures of policies which treat addiction as a crime. He will accuse governments of using what he calls "repressive" measures that deny addicts human rights rather than putting public health needs first.

He will argue that governments should fully commit to the widespread provision of harm reduction strategies aimed at intravenous drug users, such as free needle exchanges and providing substitutes to illicit drugs, such as methadone.

"A repressive way of dealing with drug users is a way of facilitating the spread of the [HIV/Aids] epidemic," Kazatchkine said. "If you know you will be arrested, you will not go for treatment. I say drug use cannot be criminalised. I'm talking about criminalising trafficking but not users. From a scientific perspective, I cannot understand the repressive policy perspective."

He condemns policymakers who argue that, because drug users frequently turn to crime to fund their habit, it justifies making it a criminal justice issue. Harm reduction both helps the addict and wider society and reduces the need to commit crime, he said.

"The one population where [Aids] mortality has been untouched - and in fact has worsened - has been IV [intravenous] drug users. It's amazing, because what we call harm reduction, such as exchanging needles, has been scientifically proven as the most effective.

"This is why I will most probably start my speech in Bangkok by mentioning the contrast between major progress achieved in decreasing mortality from Aids in the poorest countries of the world versus the total lack of progress for what is the main route of transmission in most parts of the world outside Africa."

Kazatchkine suggested that politicians feared that the public would label them soft on drugs. A doctor and respected Aids expert with 20 years in the field, he has in his two years at the helm of the Global Fund overseen some of the most dramatic improvements in treatment and prevention of HIV globally.

Since it was established in 2001, the fund has received $21bn in contributions from the world's wealthiest nations and used it to play a significant part in reducing rates of new HIV infections. It has also contributed to the distribution of much needed life-preserving anti-retroviral drugs to millions of people already diagnosed.

Alex Stevens, a senior research fellow specialising in drugs and criminalisation at the University of Kent, said tomorrow's speech would highlight many of the troubling consequences of criminal justice approaches to drugs policy.

"In many countries, serious human rights infringements are committed in the name of fighting drugs," he said. "These include the use of the death penalty for drug offences, compulsory treatment regimes that include methods (such as physical beatings) that are akin to torture, and, for example in the USA, depriving convicted drug law offenders of the right to vote."

Stevens said that, while the UK was ahead of many other countries on harm reduction, its tendency to criminalise drug users could undermine its efforts.

What is needed, Kazatchkine will argue tomorrow, is a total rethink of drugs policies. "What I'm saying is that government's function is to protect their citizens. This is why harm reduction should be supported by all governments everywhere."

• Additional research by Ali Ahmad



Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Thursday that government stimulus moves had begun to produce results and the economy was now in "better-than-expected" shape.

Wen's remarks at a cabinet executive meeting came after the government said there had been positive economic changes, even though the economy grew just 6.1 percent in the first quarter, the slowest pace in a decade.

The premier cited pick-ups in investment, consumption and industrial output, abundant liquidity in the banking system, and improved market expectations as signs of those "positive changes."

The National Bureau of Statistics said Thursday that first-quarter industrial output grew 5.1 percent year on year, with a rise of 8.3 percent in March.

It also said fixed asset investment rose 28.8 percent to 2.81 trillion yuan (413.2 billion U.S. dollars), with real growth exceeding 30 percent, while retail sales grew 15 percent to 2.94 trillion yuan.

Such positive changes indicated that the government's macroeconomic policies, taken since the second half of last year, have been "timely, powerful, and effective," said Wen, who presided over the meeting.

China announced a 4-trillion-yuan stimulus package last November to boost domestic demand, slashed interest rates five times since last September, unveiled support plans for 10 key industries, and projected a record fiscal deficit of 950 billion yuan this year.

These measures were prompted by a collapse in exports as the global downturn took its toll on the world's fastest-growing economy.

China's economic growth cooled to a seven-year low of 9 percent last year, ending five years of double-digit expansion.

"However, we must also be clear-headed and understand that grounds for the country's economic recovery are not solid enough yet, as circumstances both at home and abroad remain grim," Wen warned.

He said that global financial turmoil was still spreading, and was exerting a deepening influence on the national economy.

The premier cited continued falling in external demands, oversupply in some sectors that would suppress industrial output growth and worsen corporate earnings, reluctance in private investment, increased difficulty in raising farmers' income, the dwindling fiscal revenue, and the acute pressure to create enough jobs.

He warned against blind optimism and called for unslackened efforts to achieve the country's goals of social and economic development.

China is aiming to achieve an 8-percent growth this year, which has long been held as essential for the populous developing nation.

"We should anticipate more risks and difficulties ahead, expect a longer time frame within which we would be able to overcome the crisis, and get prepared with more satisfying measures."

The government would focus on following moves, according to the premier.

-- To bring into play measures aimed at expanding investment.

The country would soon cash in the third batch of pledged central government investment. The central government has so far cashed in 230 billion yuan (33.8 billion U.S. dollars), which is part of the 4-trillion-yuan stimulus package.

The government would also revise government approval of investment projects -- or loosen government grip on investment project approval, to encourage private investment, and would continue the work on stabilizing and expanding foreign investment.

-- To expand consumption, and consumer spending in particular.

The country would continue to improve its policy for subsidies to farmers who buy designated brands of home appliances, and stimulate spending on culture, tourism and information in the service sector.

It would also try to keep spending on such items as housing and auto stable.

-- "Using every possible means" to maintain stable trade growth.

The government would scrap policies that could restrict exports, and extend support to exports of hi-tech and labor-intensive products.

It would also increase imports of important energy resources, heavily-demanded raw materials and key technologies and equipment, and encourage domestic firms to invest overseas.

-- To keep the stable development of agriculture.

The country would continue to carry out policies favorable to farmers and agriculture. It would initiate the plan to increase the country's grain output by 50 million tonnes over the next 12 years.

-- To promote the restructuring of key industries.

The government will unveil details of the stimulus packages for10 key industries as soon as possible, and cash in the fund from central government that will be exclusively used for the restructuring and technological renovation.

The Chinese government would improve policies in favor of innovation and hi-tech industries, and may cultivate new growth in sectors of new energy, energy conservation, environmental protection, bio-pharmaceuticals, telecommunications and modern services.

-- To advance with efforts to improve people's livelihood.

The government would make public the execution plan and documents for the huge health care reforms as soon as possible. The reforms are aimed to provide universal health care to the country's large population.

It would continue to provide support to migrant workers and college graduates who are hunting for jobs.

-- To make sure the financial system is providing necessary support for the economic growth.

The government would adjust the market demand for capital and ensure capital is used to fuel the economic growth.

It would give more support to small- and medium- sized enterprises to meet their capital demand.

-- To increase fiscal revenue by making more efforts to collect taxes that are due according to laws and regulations, and at the same time cutting back on unnecessary expenditures.

Source: Xinhua

http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2009-04/17/content_234678.htm


Top Chinese political advisor Jia Qinglin Friday called for actively promoting friendly religious exchanges with the outside world on an equal base but firmly stemming foreign infiltration in the name of religion.

Jia, chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), made the remarks when addressing a seminar on religious work for ministerial and provincial level officials.

"The Party and the government have always attached great importance to religious work," said Jia, also member of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee Political Bureau.

The CPC Central Committee has made "a series of major decisions and arrangements as well as new achievements in religious work, while the country's religious sector has maintained a united and stable situation," he said.

Jia, however, warned that officials should pay high attention to some new situations and developments in the country's religious field, along with the developments and changes in international and domestic situation, and deal with them in a proper way.

He called for firmly implementing central decisions and arrangements, going all out to safeguard harmony and stability in the religious sector, and making maximal efforts to unite both religious and non-religious people and encourage them to devote themselves to the socialist cause with China's own characteristics.

The workshop was organized jointly by the Organizational Department and the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee, the State Administration of Religious Affairs, and the National School of Administration.

Source: Xinhua

THE RACE TO DO GOOD DEEDS

Economic Crisis Defines German Election

By SPIEGEL Staff

04/16/2009 05:21 PM

Germany's Social Democrats will launch their election campaign Sunday. By steering to the left and attacking Angela Merkel, the party wants to score big with voters. Its strategy will also force the conservatives to inch leftward. In the midst of a global downturn in which stimulus is the buzzword of the day, economic prudence could take a backseat.

A woman holds up playing cards with caricatures of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her opponent in this year's election, Foreign Minister Frank-Walther Steinmeier.
DDP

A woman holds up playing cards with caricatures of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her opponent in this year's election, Foreign Minister Frank-Walther Steinmeier.

On Sunday, Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party plans to announce its manifesto for its campaign in the run-up to the country's Sept. 27 national election. Aides of the party's chancellor candidate, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, expect the foreign minister and deputy chancellor to "give a major speech." Like a boxer in the ring, Steinmeier will be standing alone in the middle of a ballroom, surrounded by 2,000 cheering guests, in a scene reminiscent of American presidential campaigns. His campaign managers apparently hope that some of the energy surrounding the 2008 campaign of US President Barack Obama will rub off on Steinmeier.

For the SPD, the kick-off of the campaign is truly a reason to celebrate, notwithstanding its poor standing in the polls. Social Democrats love election campaigns, which they perceive as the highlight of party life. Infighting between the party's two wings has been temporarily laid to rest, as party members come together behind a common purpose.

The conservative Christian Democratic Party (CDU) and its sister party -- the Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU), which is also part of Merkel's power-sharing grand coalition government with the SPD -- take a more anxious approach to election campaigns, which they could just as well do without. The conservatives assume that they hold sway over a natural majority within the population, but they see campaigns as a threat rather than an opportunity to expand this perceived majority -- this year in particular.

The SPD's event at the Tempodrom will be the official prelude to a duel that strategists describe as the biggest adventure in German election history. A campaign held during a crisis is a novelty for Germans -- it's a situation they have not experienced yet. The two major parties are currently assembling their platforms for a race that will be fought against the background of a shrinking economy. Never before have two candidates for the chancellorship entered the campaign under such grim economic conditions. The German economy has been in free fall for months. Many jobs have not been cut yet because employers have been able to resort to short-time work as a temporary fix. Nevertheless, unemployment is expected to grow steadily, heading for a figure of 4 million, as each month leading up the parliamentary election passes.

The economic research institutes that met last Monday to begin preparing for their spring forecasts are not optimistic. It seems inevitable that they will predict a 5 percent contraction in the German economy for this year. Experts at the International Monetary Fund paint a similarly gloomy picture. In the draft version of their World Economic Outlook to be released at the end of April, they also predict that German economic outlook will decline by 5 percent in 2009. This, the report concludes, will lead to drastically higher unemployment and a bigger government deficit.

Under these conditions, the burning question in the upcoming campaign will be whether one of the two major parties can convince voters that it is the right choice to lead Germany out of its doldrums. Another important question is how a campaign waged in the midst of a crisis will change German politics.

Could an economic populism emerge that may even exacerbate the effects of the downturn in Germany? Will the opponents burn through billions, creating a financial burden for generations to come? Or will they pin their hopes on German citizens electing a restrained manager who will not promise them everything under the sun?

"Leadership strength will be the key variable in this election campaign," says Richard Hilmer of polling and market research institute Infratest dimap.

Graphic: Waning economic competence
DER SPIEGEL

Graphic: Waning economic competence

On the issue of leadership, polls currently show Merkel edging out her opponent, Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Minister Steinmeier. This is one of the reasons strategists at CDU headquarters had decided to completely tailor the campaign to Merkel. Merkel's advisors are betting on the notion that sitting chancellors do well in times of crisis. They hope that the desire for change will not even be an issue for German voters in such ominous times.

To put a dent in Merkel's reputation, the chancellor candidate and the SPD chairman have agreed to a distribution of roles. While Steinmeier plays the statesman, Müntefering will take every opportunity to question his rival's leadership qualities. "Ms. Merkel doesn't lead," Müntefering likes to say. "She won't even commit herself."

Officials at SPD headquarters are convinced that constant repetition of this characterization of Merkel as a weak chancellor -- like a slow-acting poison -- will in fact force her to take clearer positions early on in the campaign. But this is a dangerous strategy. The notion that "he who denigrates his opponent damages himself" has been a guiding principle in past campaigns, says Michael Spreng, who managed conservative former Bavarian Governor Edmund Stoiber's campaign for the chancellorship in 2002. But in times of crisis, says Spreng, voters do not reward mudslingers. "The negative campaigning of recent years is worthless," he says.

It is already apparent that the election campaign in a time of crisis will shift German politics to the left. When bankers and family-owned companies are receiving billions in taxpayer money to protect them from bankruptcy, it is hard to explain to voters why skilled laborers who have lost their jobs should have to make do with the Hartz IV program, which dramatically reduces jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. This sense of dissatisfaction already emerged during the Grand Coalition government's previous attempts to handle the crisis with economic stimulus programs, and the trend will only become stronger during the campaign.

The SPD, in particular, is marching steadfastly toward the left. The campaign it will unveil at Berlin's Tempodrom Arena on April 19 is intended to not only reflect the tastes of its own base, but also to capture the zeitgeist.

Volkswagon employees, like those at most other German carmakers, are worried about losing their jobs. And in an election year, German politicians are spending billions of taxpayer money in stimulus to ensure that they don't.
DDP

Volkswagon employees, like those at most other German carmakers, are worried about losing their jobs. And in an election year, German politicians are spending billions of taxpayer money in stimulus to ensure that they don't.

The cornerstones of the platform are already defined, and they are clearly tailored to the crisis. Party leaders agreed on these basic elements at a strategy meeting in Berlin last week. They want to make it clear to citizens that their votes could mark a "sea change," and that when they go to the polls on Sept. 27, they will be asked to decide on Germany's future direction. According to the SPD's message, if Merkel is elected, it will be business as usual in the market economy. The SPD hopes to characterize her policies as what it calls "attentism," or taking a wait-and-see approach, and "an absence of doctrine."

With the SPD, on the other hand, turbo-capitalism based on the Anglo-Saxon model could be fettered by a "state capable of taking action." Deputy Party Chairwoman Andrea Nahles of the SPD's leftist base sets the tone for the campaign when she says: "The present economic model carries the seed of failure. It isn't enough for Ms. Merkel to engage in a little bit of crisis management. We must make fundamental changes."

The Social Democrats hope that the crisis will act as a contrast agent, clearly highlighting the differences between the CDU/CSU and the SPD. In this vein, they are promising voters that they will eliminate tax havens and impose sharper regulations on the financial markets and tighter controls on executive compensation. They also promise to secure existing jobs and create new ones. This includes advocating for minimum wages, strengthening protections against wrongful dismissal, defending free collective bargaining and, if necessary, supporting government bailouts for ailing companies, like automaker Opel.

The SPD also advocates a top-down redistribution of wealth, including plans to increase taxes for higher income brackets. Another possibility is the introduction of a "millionaire tax" to replace the former wealth tax. In return, classic SPD voters in middle and lower income groups could expect to see their taxes lowered. Other expected campaign issues are equal pay for men and women, as well as education and environmental policy.

The Social Democrats are not losing any sleep over the notion that the government's role must be strengthened, at least temporarily, to combat the recession and the banking crisis. Many in the CDU/CSU, on the other hand, are convinced that laws nationalizing banks or capping executive pay are the precursors to socialism. This is another reason why Merkel and her party are doing their best to avoid laying out their agenda.

CDU party boss Ronald Pofalla is refining a document that will be most strongly characterized by its absence of commitment. It would be best for the CDU/CSU to dispense with a campaign platform this time around, says one of Merkel's advisors. "But we have to be able to hand people some sort of literature at our campaign booths."

The chancellor believes that any clear statements of position would lead to discord, which explains why she has decided to delay unveiling her campaign platform for as long as possible. "Let's hope we get it done by election day," says one CDU/CSU politician facetiously. According to the current plan, the leaders of the CDU and CSU will approve the platform on June 29.

The conservatives are betting that by showing their cards late in the game, they will narrow the window of opportunity for attacks. Besides, within the Union, opinions diverge widely between the CDU and CSU on almost all key issues. If Merkel opposes tax cuts, the CSU will cry foul. And if she advocates cuts, she will face criticism from CDU/CSU state governors, who wield tremendous power within the political bloc.

Third Economic Stimulus Package Expected

Social policy threatens to be another bone of contention. CDU politicians in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, for example, want to improve benefits for welfare recipients under the Hartz IV program and raise pensions for low-income earners. "We will fight to make sure that these demands are included in the campaign platform," says North Rhine-Westphalia's Labor Minister Karl-Josef Laumann. The economic wing of the CDU/CSU, on the other hand, believes that the resolutions adopted at the 2003 party convention in Leipzig -- an event where the party reaffirmed its conservative roots and offered its support for a number of the Agenda 2010 social reforms Schröder was pushing through -- were not some neoliberal aberration.

Is Germany's internationally touted scrapping premium an expensive farce that is unnecessarily distorting markets?
DPA

Is Germany's internationally touted scrapping premium an expensive farce that is unnecessarily distorting markets?

Merkel sensed the magnitude of the challenges she will face in the campaign when she met with a handpicked group of CDU/CSU members of parliament for an evening strategy session at the Chancellery in mid-March. Party leader Pofalla proudly explained his concept of a high-speed campaign with little content. But the group didn't share the secretary general's euphoria. Michael Fuchs, a CDU economics expert, voiced his opinion on Pofalla's plan at the end of the meeting. "I will be hard-pressed to win over my voters with this sort of three-day program," Fuchs said heatedly.

This is the real risk for Merkel. The image of an independent chancellor begins to disintegrate the minute the infighting begins within the CDU/CSU. This is why Merkel tries to cover up the cracks running through her party behind hazy campaign rhetoric. She also wants to remain flexible. In times of crisis, spontaneous action becomes more important than ever, and the chancellor wants to be in a position to react to any SPD forays into populism.

The farce surrounding the so-called scrapping premium provided a foretaste last week of where a race to do good deeds can lead in an election campaign -- not into the realm of economic prudence, at any rate.

When the government introduced the program, which provides government subsidies to drivers willing to replace cars that are at least nine years old, in January, Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück wanted to impose strict limits on the plan. He announced that no more than 600,000 applications would be approved. Only last week, Chancellor Merkel and Vice Chancellor Steinmeier agreed to phase out the program in the coming months.

But then the tabloids reported on a wave of protests among car buyers and dealers, and the government gave in. Its decision to continue to pay the full scrapping premium is expected to add between €1.5 billion ($2 billion) and €5 billion ($6.6 billion) to the federal budget and cause substantial distortions in the economy.

In truth, both the CDU/CSU and the SPD desperately want to avoid such a scenario, but the logic of an election campaign waged during a crisis could prompt them to do the opposite of what they believe to be appropriate. In recent months, Merkel and Steinbrück have repeatedly had to defend decisions that they bitterly opposed only a short time earlier.

Thus, despite their energetic denials, there is no longer any question as to whether a third economic stimulus program will be launched during the course of this election year. The only question is when it will happen and how much it will cost.

Staff members at various federal ministries are already drafting new programs to inject additional billions into the economy. If unemployment figures continue to rise, as expected, Labor Minister Olaf Scholz plans to introduce improvements in pay for short-time workers.

Meanwhile, Economics Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg wants to see tax cuts for businesses approved in the next few months.

"If the forecasts worsen, there will be a third economic stimulus program," says a senior government official. "It's just that it can't be called a stimulus program."

Reported by KERSTIN KULLMANN, ROLAND NELLES, RENÉ PFISTER, CHRISTIAN REIERMANN and MICHAEL SAUGA

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.


THE WORLD FROM BERLIN

SPD Tax Proposals 'Border on Economic Insanity'


04/17/2009 03:47 PM

The Social Democrats' leaked tax reform proposals, including a pledge to give a €300 bonus to people who don't claim tax rebates by filing returns, has unleashed a torrent of criticism in Germany. The program would cost billions in a country that is already having to borrow heavily as a result of the financial crisis, critics say.

Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD) will be meeting this weekend to hammer out and announce its program for September's federal elections, but details of a possible draft of the program that were leaked on Thursday have politicians and the press heatedly debating the party's possible proposals for amending Germany's tax regime.

The SPD is hoping to reduce paperwork for tax payers and authorities. Many doubt its suggestions for doing so will work.
AP

The SPD is hoping to reduce paperwork for tax payers and authorities. Many doubt its suggestions for doing so will work.

The list of possible measures includes reducing the lowest income tax rate to 10 percent from 14 percent, raising the highest tax rate to 47 percent from 45 percent, lowering the threshold for being subject to the highest tax rate from €250,000 to €125,000 and introducing a stock exchange tax on trades valued above €1,000.

The potential measure that elicited the most and the loudest responses, though, was one that envisions giving a €300 ($392) tax rebate to people who have no other source of income than their salaries in return for their not filing a tax return. The theory behind the lump-sum bonus payment would be that taxpayers would be able to avoid standard tax complications, such as submitting receipts for deductions, and that the tax authorities would have a much reduced burden.

Many view these proposals as part of the party's efforts to steer more to the left in a move to keep voters from abandoning it for other parties, and particularly the Left Party, as well as to win over voters worried about how the global economic downturn is hurting Germany.

Details of the party's platform were released in an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung Thursday and precipitated immediate criticism. Otto Bernhardt, for example, the parliamentary finance policy spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, called the SPD's plans "crude election campaign pledges." And Hans Michelbach, the chairman of the association of small and medium businesses for the CDU's Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), called the plan for the €300 bonus "the worst form of rip off," claiming that in many cases taxpayers could be giving up €500 in returns from the tax office in exchange for a bonus of only €300.

Politicians from other parties also joined in the chorus of criticism, as have representatives of associations for both tax preparers and payers. At the same time, though, the ideas seem to have found welcome ears among voters. According to a survey by pollster Infratest Dimap released Friday, for example, 59 percent of respondents at least approved of the SPD's proposal for raising the top tax rate.

Criticism of the SPD's plans were splashed across the editorial pages of almost all of Germany's major newspapers on Friday. And, though the reasons given varied, it was still hard to find a kind word.

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"The SPD is proving to be just as demanding to the 'rich' as it is generous to its clientele. In addition to planning to introduce a tax on stock market trading, it also wants to reduce the threshold for top earners and tax them at a higher rate. Even if you leave out church taxes, that would mean that, with the solidarity tax (which helps to pay for the creation of infrastructure in eastern Germany, among other things), this group would be paying about half its income in taxes. The SPD is trying to sell these proposals as part of a plan to reduce the tax bureaucracy. But it doesn't intend to clean up tax laws at all. It's easier, after all, just to promise a bonus to tax groups."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"Party election platforms are a bit like goody bags that get filled up with all sorts of sweets, most of which are sticky. Once the election is over, the goody bags are collected and the sweets are tossed in the garbage because no one wants to pay for them. You look in the coffers, but the money isn't there."

"And that's exactly what's going to happen with this proposal for a €300 tax rebate. Since they're already having to spend billions to save the banks as well as more billions to battle the recession, the parties will not be able to pay for all the pretty tax promises they will be making over the next few months."

Conservative Die Welt writes:

"The Social Democrats are promising more than they can deliver with these absurd regulatory suggestions, which would cause huge damage if they were ever implemented. The same holds true for the SPD's most recent coup, which says that taxpayers who choose not to file a tax return will get €300. That would be a law tailored to casual workers, including people receiving Hartz IV benefits for the longterm unemployed, who already now are not required to fill out complicated tax forms every year. It won't be long before they start flooding tax offices with (notifications that they will participate in the program) and celebrate their €300."

Graphic. Waning economic competence.
DER SPIEGEL

Graphic. Waning economic competence.

"On the other hand, the bonus will not help the majority of people. The SPD's strategy is clear: give to the bottom and take from the top -- financial calculations be damned. … But (the SPD) is obviously hiding the fact that this kind of tax set-up will primarily affect craftsmen and small-business owners, who are forced to declare their profits as income. Putting a heavier tax burden on the many companies who, at this point in time, really need to strengthen their capital positions borders on economic insanity."

"You can only hope that voters will see through the SPD's unimaginative response to increasing rates of people opposed to Germany's liberal market economy. If not, we will all have to pay the piper -- and the price will come in the form of higher taxes, more bureaucracy and less growth."

Left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"Voters will not let themselves be sold for dumb. The coalition between former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and the Greens pampered high earners by lowering the top tax rate in a historically unique way from 53 percent to 42 percent. Now, when the Social Democrats all of a sudden want to increase the tax burden of the rich with just a few more measly percentage points, they are not doing anything to fundamentally do away with the ridiculous social policies of the previous government. And even the €300 bonus for employed people who relinquish their right to file a tax return misses one important fact: Low earners don't pay any taxes. As a result, a cashier working at a discount store, a hair stylist and a security guard will never reap any benefit from the €300. It would be much more appropriate to lower social contributions that even these people have to pay, such as those for retirement, health insurance or unemployment insurance. A year ago, the SPD intensively debated and developed suggestions for finding a mechanism that would allow them to counter the CDU's plans for lowering taxes. But it is now becoming apparent that these plans have been silently scrapped."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"It is very doubtful whether a party platform that -- often justifiably -- stokes rage against the elites will be sufficient."

"(SPD party leader Franz) Müntefering, (SPD candidate for chancellor and current Foreign Minister Frank-Walter) Steinmeier and (German Finance Minister Peer) Steinbrück are also allowing the party platform to be altered because they are being forced to fear that the members of the left wing faction of their party will take over power after parliamentary elections. Still, it would be unwise for them to move too far away from the positions of the majority. And if the SPD can succeed in ending up as part of a grand coalition with Merkel's conservatives again, they wouldn't have to pay the bill (since it would never be approved by the conservatives). Steinmeier and Steinbrück would be able to hold on to their ministerial positions. There'd be a lot of grumbling, but they'd still be part of the government."

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

"The €300 tax rebate would be a very pretty taxation policy if it weren't so absurd. Are we really to believe that the state should reward its citizens by no longer bothering them with complicated tax issues? A real tax policy would do just the opposite by amending the many unsystematic tax issues so as to finally reach the simplification that has been promised so many times. There are much easier and less bureaucratic ways of doing this … but, of course, none of them sounds as pretty as '€300 for Everyone!'."

-- Josh Ward, 3:00 p.m. CEST