CNN vs Francis: Is there life beyond the "free market"?
09/12/2013
- Opinión
Some days ago the Puerto Rican journalist Xavier Serbia -- analyst for the programme “CNN dinero” (CNN money) for the Spanish version of the U.S. channel – expressed anger at the recent words of Pope Francis on the free market. In the segment "paper medal", Serbia began by saying that “the free market is not a tyranny" in response to the characterization emitted by the Pope on this theme in his first apostolic exhortation.
.jpg)
"Life with the free market is difficult. But without it, life would be impossible" was Serbia's simplistic -- and hasty -- response to the voice of the Argentine Pontiff, who had written that "While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation." What economic model fits what social model?
The debate is not innocuous. There are interests at play -- from both sides. The reproduction of a neoliberal ideology on the part of the information monopoly that is CNN is hardly surprising. Nor is it surprising that this is the media outlet for an analyst such as Xavier Serbia, author of a book titled "Cuatro pasos para la riqueza" (Four steps to wealth), where he cynically explains the possibilities of a "rise" in social status based on "personal effort" -- as if there were not previous material conditions that can impact this. Serbia, and hence CNN, are in thrall to the worn-out "American dream", that is unattainable for 1500 million human beings who today live in shanty towns or slums throughout the world.
What is surprising, and in a good sense, this must be clearly stated, is the fact that a Pope -- with all that this implies in political, economic and social terms -- dares to call into question a status quo that is clearly unjust on a world scale. Hence the angry reaction of CNN, which could hardly imagine that the head of some 1200 million Catholics in the world would dare to say that the famous "trickle-down theory" [which assumes that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world] -- which has never been confirmed by the facts -- “expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacrosanct workings of the prevailing economic system."
Some Latin American governments (post-neoliberals) have understood this, increasing investment in social development, housing, work, health and public education, calling into question the (absent) social treatment of our countries during the neoliberal period. The most radical governments of this new epoch -- Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador -- have also been the most significant actors against the "neoliberal recipe", calling into question its basic assumptions, affirming that a radical break with the established order is the only way to resolve these problems. It is no accident that these countries have enacted constitutional reforms that expanded the rights of the popular majorities.
Others, the "neo-developmentalists" -- Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay -- without making a definitive break with the established institutions, have developed more social investment, with specific measures (the Family Fund, or a Universal Child Allowance, for example). Thus these countries have also questioned -- although more timidly than the ALBA countries -- the confidence that the market can resolve all economic problems.
And the excluded? “room for some but not for others”
The other aspect in question is not a minor one. To resume the argument: according to the vision implicit in the CNN analyst’s words, the "excluded" have some degree of "responsibility" for their situation. That is to say, they have not worked hard enough, and hence they are in a worse material and economic condition than some of their peers -- who did make a greater effort, according to the analysis. This cynical argument involves an abstract voluntarism, and in addition takes no account of the previous conditions of different communities (in economic, social, educational terms). This is an extreme individualist argument: the survival "of the fittest."
At the same time, the emergence in Latin America of diverse social and popular movements that engage in struggle against exclusion in all its forms is an interesting argument to refute the "individuality" that is assumed by Serbia's analysis. Their response is necessarily collective. These are organizations that put forward concrete plans -- from the possible acquisition of food for subsistence, to the construction of popular housing, and the struggle for better working conditions – as well as a critical vision of the hegemonic political, economic and social system.
The Movimiento Sin Tierra (MST) of Brazil, for example, was able to obtain through their historic struggle -- since their foundation, in the mid-1980s -- the recuperation of thousands of hectares of unproductive land, to be distributed among campesinos. Cooperatives were established to undertake productive tasks, while the demand for agrarian reform never ceased. In Argentina, after the formation of the Movimiento de Trabajadores Excluidos (MTE – movement of excluded workers), progress was made in the organization of thousands of recycling workers, which not only improved working conditions in this sector, but which also promoted the organization of the Confederación de Trabajadores de la Economía Popular (CTEP), where diverse social and political organizations in the country have established a horizon of emancipation. An infinite number of similar stories can be found throughout our continent over the last fifteen years.
And what is the way forward?
The establishment at a deeper level of inclusive measures -- in social and economic terms -- by post-neoliberal governments is more needed than ever in the face of the pressure in favour of the other approach to "social questions": these are the countries that make up the Alianza del Pacífico (Mexico, Peru, Colombia and Chile), and which -- being conservative governments -- are inclined towards "laisser faire" markets, rather than possible -- and for them undesirable -- intervention on the part of the State, and involve, either through action or omission, a lack of governmental attention to the problems of the majorities (we are aware of the sad history of these experiences during the 1990s).
On the other hand, the concrete, tangible examples that we mentioned above demonstrate that a popular economy "from below" is not only possible but necessary as well for the near future. They demonstrate that when Francis demands moving out of this situation, with his attack on "trickle down" theory, it can only be achieved with solid, organized collective efforts, which contribute to improve the living conditions of borderline workers in our countries, and that, as they advance in collective learning, they can look beyond basic demands in their action.
We believe, to conclude, that both cases -- that of the social movements that we have mentioned, and of post-neoliberal governments in our continent -- demonstrate that however much Serbia and CNN may dislike it, there is life "beyond the free market".
(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)
The debate is not innocuous. There are interests at play -- from both sides. The reproduction of a neoliberal ideology on the part of the information monopoly that is CNN is hardly surprising. Nor is it surprising that this is the media outlet for an analyst such as Xavier Serbia, author of a book titled "Cuatro pasos para la riqueza" (Four steps to wealth), where he cynically explains the possibilities of a "rise" in social status based on "personal effort" -- as if there were not previous material conditions that can impact this. Serbia, and hence CNN, are in thrall to the worn-out "American dream", that is unattainable for 1500 million human beings who today live in shanty towns or slums throughout the world.
What is surprising, and in a good sense, this must be clearly stated, is the fact that a Pope -- with all that this implies in political, economic and social terms -- dares to call into question a status quo that is clearly unjust on a world scale. Hence the angry reaction of CNN, which could hardly imagine that the head of some 1200 million Catholics in the world would dare to say that the famous "trickle-down theory" [which assumes that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world] -- which has never been confirmed by the facts -- “expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacrosanct workings of the prevailing economic system."
Some Latin American governments (post-neoliberals) have understood this, increasing investment in social development, housing, work, health and public education, calling into question the (absent) social treatment of our countries during the neoliberal period. The most radical governments of this new epoch -- Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador -- have also been the most significant actors against the "neoliberal recipe", calling into question its basic assumptions, affirming that a radical break with the established order is the only way to resolve these problems. It is no accident that these countries have enacted constitutional reforms that expanded the rights of the popular majorities.
Others, the "neo-developmentalists" -- Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay -- without making a definitive break with the established institutions, have developed more social investment, with specific measures (the Family Fund, or a Universal Child Allowance, for example). Thus these countries have also questioned -- although more timidly than the ALBA countries -- the confidence that the market can resolve all economic problems.
And the excluded? “room for some but not for others”
The other aspect in question is not a minor one. To resume the argument: according to the vision implicit in the CNN analyst’s words, the "excluded" have some degree of "responsibility" for their situation. That is to say, they have not worked hard enough, and hence they are in a worse material and economic condition than some of their peers -- who did make a greater effort, according to the analysis. This cynical argument involves an abstract voluntarism, and in addition takes no account of the previous conditions of different communities (in economic, social, educational terms). This is an extreme individualist argument: the survival "of the fittest."
At the same time, the emergence in Latin America of diverse social and popular movements that engage in struggle against exclusion in all its forms is an interesting argument to refute the "individuality" that is assumed by Serbia's analysis. Their response is necessarily collective. These are organizations that put forward concrete plans -- from the possible acquisition of food for subsistence, to the construction of popular housing, and the struggle for better working conditions – as well as a critical vision of the hegemonic political, economic and social system.
The Movimiento Sin Tierra (MST) of Brazil, for example, was able to obtain through their historic struggle -- since their foundation, in the mid-1980s -- the recuperation of thousands of hectares of unproductive land, to be distributed among campesinos. Cooperatives were established to undertake productive tasks, while the demand for agrarian reform never ceased. In Argentina, after the formation of the Movimiento de Trabajadores Excluidos (MTE – movement of excluded workers), progress was made in the organization of thousands of recycling workers, which not only improved working conditions in this sector, but which also promoted the organization of the Confederación de Trabajadores de la Economía Popular (CTEP), where diverse social and political organizations in the country have established a horizon of emancipation. An infinite number of similar stories can be found throughout our continent over the last fifteen years.
And what is the way forward?
The establishment at a deeper level of inclusive measures -- in social and economic terms -- by post-neoliberal governments is more needed than ever in the face of the pressure in favour of the other approach to "social questions": these are the countries that make up the Alianza del Pacífico (Mexico, Peru, Colombia and Chile), and which -- being conservative governments -- are inclined towards "laisser faire" markets, rather than possible -- and for them undesirable -- intervention on the part of the State, and involve, either through action or omission, a lack of governmental attention to the problems of the majorities (we are aware of the sad history of these experiences during the 1990s).
On the other hand, the concrete, tangible examples that we mentioned above demonstrate that a popular economy "from below" is not only possible but necessary as well for the near future. They demonstrate that when Francis demands moving out of this situation, with his attack on "trickle down" theory, it can only be achieved with solid, organized collective efforts, which contribute to improve the living conditions of borderline workers in our countries, and that, as they advance in collective learning, they can look beyond basic demands in their action.
We believe, to conclude, that both cases -- that of the social movements that we have mentioned, and of post-neoliberal governments in our continent -- demonstrate that however much Serbia and CNN may dislike it, there is life "beyond the free market".
(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)
- Juan Manuel Karg has a degree in Political Science from UBA, and is a Researcher with the Centro Cultural de la Cooperación
http://alainet.org/active/69566
https://www.alainet.org/de/node/81545?language=es
Del mismo autor
- Brasil: Caída de un país líder 11/06/2019
- La estocada de Moreno a Unasur 15/03/2019
- Mantener la paz en Sudamérica 12/02/2019
- El sueño de Xi Jinping, la pesadilla de Trump 11/01/2019
- La posverdad es el prefascismo 30/10/2018
- Por qué ganó Bolsonaro 10/10/2018
- Brasil: una elección decisiva 21/09/2018
- Diez puntos sobre la elección en Brasil 08/08/2018
- AMLO, el persistente 03/07/2018
- Un nuevo ciclo podría empezar 06/06/2018
