Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Using only hot chili sauce as a local anesthetic, the people who performed this fateful operation typically did so in one swoop, using a small, curved knife. In exchange for a lifetime of humiliation marked by incontinence and sexual frustration, a few eunuchs were able to achieve tremendous influence and wealth.

Traditionally, a eunuch preserved his genitals in a jar, to insure that they would eventually be buried with him, in the belief that this would guarantee his reincarnation as a ''full'' man.

coincidentally the year that the former Emperor Pu Yi died -- Mr. Sun's family destroyed his jar. They were afraid of being punished by marauding Red Guards if such a symbol of China's feudal past were discovered.

The practice of using castrated men as guardians of the emperor's inner court began more than 2,000 years ago.

the eunuchs became crucial intermediaries between the outer bureaucratic world and the inner imperial one.

'Any senior official with business that demanded the emperor's attention had to persuade a eunuch to carry the message for him; the eunuchs, naturally enough, asked for fees in return for such service, and soon the more powerful ones were flattered and bribed by ambitious officials.

A ruling principle of Chinese history emerged: whenever the authority of an emperor receded, so the influence of eunuchs grew as a court yielded to a web of corruption, a hallmark of a declining dynasty ripe to be overthrown

his eventual success or promotion depended on the favor in which his master was held. On his master's death, a young eunuch might be forgotten in the sluices until the day he himself died, but if he was apprenticed to the chief eunuch he might rapidly acquire influence.''

Though eunuchs were generally illiterate, some, like Li Lianying, could read enough of the stylized court language to wield influence over officials bearing documents.

A eso se suma un factor importante: su caudillo y parte de la dirigencia del proyecto masista, vienen de la marginalidad social (a diferencia de los conductores políticos de la revolución nacional del 52 que eran parte de una clase media intelectual), que se han abierto a empellones un espacio político y no entienden otro modo de hacer política que no sea confrontando y doblegando al adversario.

le preguntó a Evo Morales por qué confrontaba tanto, la repuesta de Evo fue categórica: “mira dónde he llegado confrontando”.     La hegemonía y la confrontación son parte de la esencia y están en medula espinal del masismo.

El MAS se identifica mejor con la postulación de Abimael Guzmán de que “al margen del poder todo es ilusión” O con el planteamiento de Carlos Mariátegui que afirma: “La primera tarea del revolucionario es tomar el poder, la segunda, no dejarlo jamás”:

El MNR después del triunfo de la revolución del 9 de abril fue implacable con sus detractores, no dudó en crear campos de concentración y violar derechos humanos. Paz Estenssoro hizo suyo aquel dicho popular que dice: “que para hacer una torta hay que romper muchos huevos” y no le tembló la mano a la hora de ser duro.

Lo propio ocurre el año 2006 cuando el MAS captura el poder. Solo podía instalar el “proceso de cambio” desde la óptica del hegemonismo político y la confrontación.

La Asamblea Constituyente que motivó el cambio de la Constitución Política, la nacionalización de los hidrocarburos, el control por parte del Estado de empresas como YPFB, Entel y otras, el nacimiento del Estado Plurinacional en vez de la República, el empoderamiento de sectores indígenas, el ingreso de sectores sociales al manejo del aparato del Estado, eran imposibles de lograr si un MAS hegemónico y confrontacional.

Es cierto que lo hegemónico y confrontacional trae aparejado el abuso, el atropello, la violación a derechos humanos y otras consecuencias que van contra la esencia de la democracia occidental. Pero al MAS no le interesa eso, porque no se identifica con la democracia occidental.

En nuestro país, la revolución nacional de 1952 fue hegemónica y confrontacional. Es imposible pensar la implementación de la Nacionalización de las minas, la Reforma Agraria, la Reforma Educativa, el Voto Universal y todas las medidas de la Revolución Nacional sin un partido hegemónico, como era en ese momento era el MNR y sin una confrontación abierta con todos los exponentes y defensores del Estado Minero-Feudal pre 52.

Solo el cambio de correlación de fuerzas y de realidad social y económica harán que el MAS tenga otra actitud.

Puede ceder espacios al adversario cuando éstos se someten o son funcionales. También respeta al rival cuando tiene fuerza propia, pero trabaja para debilitarlo y arrinconarlo.

Por eso causa hilaridad cuando la oposición le reclama al MAS conductas democráticas occidentales.

El MAS entrará en un escenario democrático cuando su subsistencia política dependa de ser parte de una democracia de pactos. Tal como lo entendió el MNR el año 1985 cuando supo que ya no era hegemónico y su única forma de gobernar era en con pactos y alianzas. Igual ocurrió con Banzer que entendió que en democracia no podía gobernar sin acuerdos políticos, como lo hizo cuando fue dictador y su poder se basaba en las bayonetas.

desde caída de Evo Morales y del retorno al poder de del MAS de la mano de Luis Arce y David Choquehuanca sea han y se están desarrollando una serie de contradicciones dentro del bloque nacional-popular.

La primera constatación que el triunfo de Arce y Choquehuanca establece es que el bloque nacional popular distingue claramente lo que es el denominado “proceso de cambio” y el rol dentro el mismo de Evo Morales.

Está claro que para la mayoría de las bases de lo nacional- popular el proceso de cambio se encuentra encima de Evo Morales.

En todo caso, las fricciones, divisiones o desgajes del bloque nacional –popular no van a reforzar a tiendas políticas que estén en una visión “neoliberal” o forman parte de lo que las bases populares denominen la derecha. Se quedan dentro la narrativa popular- nacional y dentro el movimiento del “proceso de cambio.”

Durante la campaña electoral presidencial es donde se consolida el hecho de que MAS puede hacer política y ganar sin Evo La campaña también sirve para la irrupción de lideratos como Eva Copa, Choquehuanca, Andrónico y el propio Lucho Arce.

Ya en los últimos años del gobierno de Evo se desataron fuertes críticas al entorno del entonces presidente y a la forma vertical del manejo del instrumento político que hacía Morales.

A esto se suma, el rechazo que tiene en la actualidad la figura de Evo Morales en sectores de clase media, no solo en el sector profesional o en sus capas altas, sino en gente de clase media que sigue viendo con simpatía y es querendona del “proceso de cambio”. Y que reconoce que el mismo obtuvo resultados positivos para el país.

La elección subnacional confirmó el rechazo a Evo sobre todo en la mayoría de las ciudades capitales. La cosa se agrava cuando fuerzas políticas como Jallalla y MTS son los verdugos electorales del MAS, derrotándolo en lugares importantes y estratégicos.

Este cuadro interno del bloque de la Nacional- Popular, en concordancia con el resultado electoral de las últimas elecciones de gobernaciones y alcaldías han motivado que el masismo se lance a ejecutar y tomar la iniciativa bajo la siguiente estrategia: Introdujo en el ajedrez político el tema de convalidar la tesis del “golpe de Estado” para desarrollar los siguientes puntos:

a) El enemigo común

La explicación es muy simple, a todos los adscritos a la narrativa nacional-popular les conviene que se aniquile o cuando menos se arrincone a la oposición que dice representar “la modernidad y el neoliberalismo” para que la definición política y sobre todo el futuro de la misma se desarrolle dentro sus filas.

Una vez conseguido el objetivo de lograr la unidad contra el enemigo común se produce el segundo paso:

b) El escarmiento, la amenaza y el aislamiento

nmediatamente el MAS comienza con el escarmiento, metiendo a la cárcel a la ex presidenta, a sus ministros, a militares y policías. Se trata de una medida de fuerza donde el partido de gobierno demuestra no tener piedad con sus adversarios. Con la detención de la ex presidenta y sus colaboradores se busca demostrar la ilegitimidad e ilegalidad del régimen de Jeanine Añez, pero ante todo establecer que es un acto de “justicia” y reivindicación con la ciudad de El Alto por los hechos de Senkata, que quiere transmitir el mensaje que ya nadie podrá atacar impunemente a los habitantes de la principal ciudad Aymara del país, porque ellos son los únicos dueños de su territorio.

Sobre estos dos movimientos de ajedrez que el MAS realizó: el primero la táctica del enemigo a común y segundo la política del escarmiento, la amenaza y el aislamiento, el MAS trabaja la posibilidad de tres desemboques que son los siguientes:

La amenaza es contra los demás jefes políticos que tienen que saber que sobre ellos está la espada de Damocles, que en cualquier momento pueden ser judicializados e ir presos.

El aislamiento es dirigido: aislar y dividir a las autoridades electas para que por su cuenta busquen salvar sus espacios de poder ya sea sometiéndose o negociando con el poder central.

Pero el aislamiento está focalizado contra Camacho para aislarlo del resto del país y debilitarlo poco a poco. Lo sugestivo es que, globalmente, estas acciones han funcionado.

Nadie se ha roto las vestiduras por el apresamiento de la ex presidenta y sus colaboradores, la indignación que causó el hecho fue muy focalizada en ciertos sectores sociales y una lluvia de tres días. Esto debido al poco peso y representatividad que tiene la expresidenta Añez en la sociedad boliviana.

Respecto a los militares presos, pasa lo mismo, ya ni siquiera en su institución generan solidaridad de cuerpo, porque hoy en la cabeza de los militares bolivianos está la preocupación de ascender al grado superior y terminar la carrera militar con una buena jubilación que defender a un camarada caído. En la policía sucede lo mismo

Es evidente que la presión internacional juega su rol, pero gobiernos de corte hegemónico y confrontacional, siempre ignoran esta presión, incluso actúan contra ella.

El apresamiento de militares y policías es el decirles a ambos que el poder civil y constitucional está encima y quien se atreva a violar tal situación, solo tendrá como destino la cárcel. Con ello se quiere desechar cualquier intento de subversión y de amotinamiento en el futuro.

1.- El retorno al poder del “comandante” Evo Morales

Se trata de una línea política de los sectores duros del Evismo, que quieren el retorno inmediato de Evo al poder porque, según ellos, fue derrocado por un “golpe de Estado” después, desde su visión, de haber “ganado” la elección del 2019. Y por lo tanto se le debería devolver el poder.

Este ha sido y es la razón primaria de imponer en el escenario político la temática del “golpe de Estado”.

Evidentemente, tal estrategia del sector duro solo podrá ser victoriosa en un escenario ya no de confrontación, sino de enfrentamiento entre bolivianos. Pero los duros del Evismo creen que ese el mejor camino porque así se adelantaría la eliminación de los adversarios del “proceso de cambio” y de Evo, asegurando el poder para el próximo decenio.

Objetivamente no hay condiciones para que esta línea política, llamada por propios y extraños la vía venezolana, pueda tener éxito. Pero a veces el fanatismo y la violencia consiguen objetivos que la racionalidad se niega admitir.

Sin embargo, hay factores subjetivos que quieren que se desarrolle la vía denominada Venezuela.

Para nadie es un secreto que la obsesión que tiene por el poder Evo Morales es casi patológica. Para él es un difícil imaginar una vida fuera de la presidencia.

Otro factor es su círculo íntimo que saben que no volverán a gozar las mieles del poder que durante 14 años disfrutaron si Evo no vuelve a la casa grande del pueblo, porque las propias bases sociales del “proceso de cambio “los ha vetado.

los cocaleros del Chapare que tienen interés políticos y económicos casados con el Evismo.

Todo eso hace que dentro el MAS haya una tendencia que quiere el inmediato retorno de su “Comandante” Evo a la casa grande del pueblo.

2.- Recomposición del cuadro político vía adelanto de elecciones. –

Otra de las estrategias que está puesta en el ajedrez político es hacer que haya un desemboque político que termine en el adelantamiento de elecciones. Hecho que, según los promotores de este planteamiento, abriría el camino del retorno de Evo Morales al poder.

La ruta a seguir para lograr tal objetivo parece muy simple y posible de lograr. Se requiere promover una cadena de renuncias en el poder ejecutivo, que comience con la renuncia del presidente, continúe con la de David Choquehuanca y termine en con la asunción de Andrónico a la presidencia, quien por constitución tendría que convocar a nuevos comicios electorales, donde Evo ya pueda candidatear.

hay aspectos más profundos que ponen trabas a esta estrategia, veamos lo más importante:

En primera instancia, no se puede asegurar que Evo sea el candidato de unidad del bloque nacional-popular. Lo más probable es que la emergencia aymara y generacional del bloque nacional-popular se exprese en una formula distinta cuya cabeza no sea Evo Morales, lo que adelantaría la competencia interna por el liderato.

Un segundo aspecto es que en las actuales condiciones una victoria electoral de Evo está en duda. Indudablemente éste es el peor momento electoral de Evo Morales, porque tiene una fuerte ruptura con sectores de la clase media. No se puede afirmar que ese quiebre de Evo con la clase media sea irreversible, pero hoy por hoy es muy fuerte.

3.- Arce, factor de equilibrio coyuntural

Una tercera posibilidad de llegada de la última arremetida política  del MAS es buscar fortalecer la actual presidencia de Luis Arce, sacándola de parsimonia y lentitud.

En esta coyuntura el MAS tendría que cerrar filas en torno al gobierno para encarar con cierta coherencia el tema económico, la pandemia y la cuestión política.

Con un bloque nacional- popular unido Luis Arce puede viabilizar en la sociedad un plan de medidas económicas para lograr la reactivación de la economía y controlar el desarrollo de la pandemia.

Pero la más importante es que, en la interna del bloque nacional-popular, el presidente Arce, en este momento, es un factor equilibrio y unidad de las diferentes visiones e intereses que tienen todas las corrientes que se encuentran disputando el liderato y la conducción de la misma.

Por ello, sin tener claros patrocinadores puede ser la tendencia que se acabe de imponer.

Pero lo que debe quedar claro es que en ningún escenario los actores de lo nacional –popular buscan acuerdo o concertación con las fuerzas que son del polo político denominado neoliberal y anti masista. Sino todos coinciden en someterlos o arrinconarlos.

El triste vía crucis de la oposición

¿En qué momento las cúpulas de los partidos que fueron actores del ciclo neoliberal entre 1895-2006 perdieron el rumbo para ser abatidos y derrotados por las masas populares que rescataban el discurso de la nacional-popular? ¿Qué les paso? ¿Qué errores cometieron? ¿Qué fue lo que no entendieron?

Veamos algunos factores que explican y ayudan a comprender tal situación:

a) Perder el poder y perder la oposición

Uno de los síntomas más fuertes de la crisis del ciclo neoliberal se develó el 26 de junio del 2002, cuatro días antes de la elección presidencial, el entonces embajador de EEUU en Bolivia, Rocha, lanzó una amenaza en el Chapare, con Tuto Quiroga al lado (Tuto entonces presidente de Bolivia) advirtiendo que el mercado del gas a California estaba abierto a una Bolivia que salga del circuito coca-cocaína. En una clara intromisión, el entonces embajador norteamericano en Bolivia pedía que los bolivianos abrieran los ojos, pensaran en sus hijos y nietos y no votaran por Evo Morales, pero como sucede en estos casos el efecto fue un bumerang.

Pero lo más trágico vino después, cuando todas las tendencias políticas importantes del ciclo neoliberal entraron en bloque al gobierno de Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada.

Durante el tiempo que duró el ciclo neoliberal, el sistema político controló ambos espacios y aún cuando eran parte de una misma visión “neoliberal y de modernización”, tenían percepciones y matices diferentes. Y aun cuando eran rivales políticos, en algunos casos profundamente antagónicos, crearon un mecanismo de alternancia política donde los roles se intercambian.

Entonces, se tenía la sensación de una democracia moderna y estable, con alternancia. Pero, el error de ingresar todos al último gobierno de Goni demostró que el “sistema de partidos” era tan frágil como una cáscara de huevo.

Indudablemente, no se puede negar el aporte de los lideres del ciclo “neoliberal”. Sin el coraje y la valentía de Siles Suazo, no se habría reconquistado la democracia. Sin el 21060 de Víctor Paz no se habría estabilizado la economía nacional. Sin la conversión democrática de Banzer no se habría desterrado el golpismo como opción. Sin la participación popular de Goni no se habría fortalecido el poder de los municipios. Sin los acuerdos políticos que promovió y se firmó en la presidencia de Jaime Paz no se habría afianzado la democracia boliviana. También en la gestión de Paz Zamora se encontró el pozo San Alberto, Reserva gasífera sobre la cual se ha sustentando económicamente el “proceso de cambio”.

Pero todos estos aciertos no los exime de no haber entendido lo principal: la irrupción de la Bolivia profunda, que no sólo quería inclusión social, sino ser el sujeto histórico que cumpliera su rol protagónico. Es decir, lo nacional-popular quería ser el actor de su propio destino.

Carlos escribió un libro titulado “Presidencia Sitiada”, libro donde evalúa su presidencia y narra todas las presiones que tuvo que encarar su paso por el gobierno desde diferentes frentes que hicieron de su presidencia sea una presidencia “sitiada”. Pero si alguien conspiró contra la gestión de Carlos Mesa, fue el propio Carlos Mesa. Indeciso y vacilante, nunca le dio un rumbo a su gobierno. Se negó a gobernar con la coalición parlamentaria que había armado Goni. No aprobó la ley de hidrocarburos, ni se atrevió a nacionalizar los mismos, cuando tal exigencia ya era una demanda nacional.

Lo evidente es que el gobierno de Carlos Mesa cerró el ciclo neoliberal en Bolivia. Mesa se encargó de sepultarlo y de empedrar el camino del ascenso de Evo Morales.

Pero los desaciertos continuaron. Tuto Quiroga, por decisión propia, liquidó ADN. El MNR se despedazó con la caída de Goni. En el la MIR, la cúpula máxima se negó a viabilizar la candidatura presidencial Hormando Vaca, en un momento en que Hormando Vaca era la mayor referencia política de Santa Cruz y que el dirigente cruceño se perfilaba como un factor de recambio y oxigenación del mirismo.

la persistencia de los “segundones” en la vitrina de política solo es la tranca que atrasa la conformación de una opción que, desde la visión “neoliberal moderna”, tenga posibilidad de generar una política renovada que dispute el poder. Y no es que un cambio generacional de actores políticos resuelva el tema de un día a otro, pero es el primer paso que inevitablemente se debe seguir. El país demanda la instauración de un nuevo ciclo político con nuevos protagonistas.

Jeaninne: cuando las ambiciones matan

hay responsables detrás las sombras del encarcelamiento de Añez. Son todos aquellos que aprovechando de su ingenuidad y poca formación política la utilizaron.

la presidencia Añez se perdió en su laberinto, cuando si hubiese cumplido con el objetivo para el cual fue elegida, habría tenido una gestión decorosa y salido de palacio por la puerta grande.

a la ex mandataria la mató políticamente su propia ambición.

Oposición con complejo y sin discurso ideológico-político

Pero el más grande error de la actual oposición es no haber asimilado, que el proceso cambio, fue una transformación que cambió la realidad del país y los dejó sin discurso político. Ante esta realidad les vino un complejo:

Tienen miedo decir que son neoliberales, que proponen la economía de libre mercado y que están contra el “populismo”.

No saben qué hacer ante la emergencia indígena, quechua y aymara.

No han diseñado en 14 años de Masismo una propuesta alternativa.

Lo demostraron cuando se instauró el gobierno de transición, sin saber qué hacer, solo pavimentaron el retorno del MAS.

no tienen estrategia para tomar el poder, ni siquiera para derrotar a lo que denominan autoritarismo.

Incapaces de crear una opción política solida que canalice el voto del eje anti masista, a la hora de verdad se fragmentan y optan por la vía del sálvese quien pueda, negociando cada quien por su cuenta.

La economía, la madre del cordero

Todos vuelcan los ojos sobre la economía y dicen que al estamos entrando en el periodo de las vacas flacas, que el actual gobierno ya no dispone ni dispondrá de recursos financieros para derrochar y que el país entrará en una crisis económica que será su tumba porque se sumará la crisis de salud y otros temas.

Prefiero explicarlo en términos más sencillos.

El país está en este momento en la necesidad de conseguir dinero “cash” para reactivar su economía y no comerse sus reservas En tanto consigue dinero se deberá, como en cualquier hogar, amarrarse el cinturón y tomar algunas medidas de acuerdo a una escala de prioridades, buscando cubrir el bienestar de cada uno de sus miembros.

No se puede realizar una adecuada política económica si no se consideran las variables de orden social.

Me preguntarán: ¿cómo lo hicieron antes?

La respuesta es muy simple, lo hicieron en un escenario político de reflujo del movimiento popular y por la fuerza, como lo hizo Banzer en el año 1972 que era una dictadura militar que había derrotado el 21 de agosto de 1971 al gobierno de Torres y al movimiento popular. Lo hizo Víctor Paz con el 21060, a partir de una fuerte coalición política con la ADN, movilizando al ejercito, pero sobre la derrota política y social de lo nacional-popular expresado en la UDP.

Pero hoy es diferente, hay un empoderamiento de los sectores marginados del país que ni siquiera a Evo Morales le permitieron devaluar la moneda.

Lo mismo sucede con la idea de liberarizar la economía, porque simplemente la actual Constitución ha blindado el manejo de los recursos naturales y que las empresas estratégicas sean solo de carácter estatal. Esto conspira contra la atracción libre de capitales a nuestra economía.

Esto lleva a que el actual gobierno, por su legalidad y legitimidad política, es el que tiene más posibilidades que cualquier opositor de encarar la crisis. Esto debido a que es la única fuerza política que puede lograr un consenso social y político

Lo triste de la oposición es que no solo no tiene propuesta económica, sino que carece de credibilidad en los grandes sectores sociales que opinan que no pueden conducir con éxito una crisis económica.

Por ello, jugar a la crisis económica es dar un salto al vacío. Desear que la crisis económica derroque al MAS es una estupidez, porque no sólo arrastrará al MAS, sino a toda la oposición y creará un caos nacional de imprevisibles consecuencias.

Por ello, nadie quiere que se agrave la crisis económica.

Por ello, es que todos pondrán su esfuerzo para que eso no ocurra.

De ahí que la economía es la madre del cordero que como siempre, será el escenario sobre el cual se desarrollarán las distintas estrategias políticas.

A manera de conclusión.

1.-Lo primero que observo es que la sociedad en general está demandando la conformación de un nuevo ciclo político, con nuevos actores. Este es un fenómeno común tanto dentro del campo nacional-popular (la izquierda) como al interior de quienes se afilian en el campo neoliberal moderno (derecha).

La diferencia está que en el campo nacional-popular este fenómeno se está generando desde las bases, con gran ímpetu democrático. Mientras que en la vereda del campo neoliberal y anti -masista es más el reclamo espontáneo des sus militantes y simpatizantes  Y esto tiene una explicación, el campo nacional tuvo y todavía tiene un partido político de expansión nacional, como es el MAS

Mientras que las fuerzas anti-mas nunca lograron estructurar un partido de alcance nacional. Sus expresiones políticas como sus lideratos siempre han sido regionales o expresiones de ciertos segmentos específicos.

No pudieron generar un verdadero movimiento nacional que tengan una solida expresión partidaria, esta ausencia es su gran debilidad. Por eso no es locura, ni irracionalidad que algunos miembros de esta tendencia hagan vigilia en la puerta de cuarteles y pidan que los militares tomen el poder. Es simplemente la constatación de que no confían en .Y no los ven con la suficiente fuerzas para derrotar al masismo democráticamente en una elección presidencial, y ante esa evidencia prefieren el retorno al poder de los militares.

Pero lo más grave de esta conducción, que son remanentes del viejo sistema político, aprovecharon la rebelión de las pititas y se pusieron en la ola política, instaurando y siendo parte de manera directa o indirecta del gobierno de Jeanine, hicieron tan mal cosas que de un plumazo los barrió el bloque nacional-popular. Por ello, quien más renovación política necesita es el campo “neoliberal-moderno”.

2.-La renovación requiere política, requiere la jubilación de todos los actores del viejo sistema político y esto llega también a Evo Morales.

Esta situación creará un conflicto en el campo-nacional-popular porque Evo no cederá espacio, dará pelea y buscará la forma de volver a ser la cabeza del eje nacional-popular. Pero a diferencia de coyunturas pasadas, Evo ya tiene interpelación y rivales que le quieren disputar la conducción y el liderato del proceso de cambio.

3.-Considero que, en las actuales condiciones el nuevo liderato de lo “neoliberal –moderno” debe tener las siguientes características:

A.-) Tiene que ser un liderato transversal que tenga aceptación en clases sociales y regiones

B.-) Tiene que saber a lo que se enfrenta, por ejemplo, cuando se habla de autoritarismo tiene que saber de dónde proviene y cuáles las causas de ese autoritarismo.

Desde mi punto de vista hay dos tipos de autoritarismo, el que emerge de la acción militar o golpista, a los que es fácil enfrentarlos porque tienen la ola social en contra. Y hay autoritarismos que emergen con base social y apoyo popular porque encarnan las aspiraciones de las mayorías nacionales y, generalmente, las identifican con un caudillo.

Lo que quiero significar es que para vencer el “autoritarismo “del MAS hay que vencer las causas que lo generaron.  En otras palabras, hay que derrotar el racismo, la exclusión social, el regionalismo, etc. En resumen, todo lo que la democracia de pactos no encaró y dio origen al masismo.

C.-) Tiene que tener una propuesta clara que pueda demostrar a los sectores populares afines a lo nacional-popular, que el camino del libre mercado, de la inversión privada, la concertación, la democracia de pactos etc., les dará mejores días que el camino del Estatismo.

4.- En el campo nacional –popular se está produciendo la emergencia de una línea Aymara, que quiere ponerse a la cabeza del proceso de cambio, porque cree que ha llegado su momento. Y que seguramente dará una fuerte pelea interna. Dirigentes como Eva Copa, David Choquehuanca, el propio Patzi y Santos Quispe son expresión de ello.

Muchos pueden pensar que ahí empieza un periodo de división, pero en mi criterio eso es hilar muy fino y no entender que los aymaras y quechuas se han dado cuenta que en su unidad está su fuerza y que incluso con variantes ideológicas dentro de ellos pueden gobernar el país por muchos años

Ya es muy difícil pensar, por no decir imposible, que los Aymaras y Quechuas voten para presidente por un “blanquito” clasemediero con aires de aristócrata

Pero hay algo más, los aymaras y quechuas no sólo quieren conducir el proceso de cambio y el poder, quieren tener el control territorial del país.

Y han iniciado su larga marcha, para decirlo en palabras de Mao, sobre las tierras bajas Ya tienen una gran presencia en Pando y Beni y una creciente presencia en Santa Cruz.

Se estima que el 2035 el 45% de la población boliviana vivirá en Santa Cruz y de ese 45% la mitad será colla o de ascendencia colla. Y es un proceso que parece irreversible, fruto del desarrollo antropológico y sociológico del país.

Por otro lado, desde la visión Aymara y Quechua solo cuando ellos tengan el control total de nuestro territorio se podrá construir una identidad nacional

5.- Sin embargo, todo el desarrollo del tema va e irá de modo paralelo al tema económico. La economía marcará el ritmo de la política. Regulará las marchas y contramarchas de las intenciones políticas de uno lado y del otro.

Por otro lado, los recién electos gobernadores y alcaldes están desesperadamente buscando tener relación con el gobierno para viabilizar su gestión y contar para ello con recursos económicos.

Ente sentido, resulta infantil y de poca creatividad decir que el presidente Arce es un vulgar títere de Evo, quienes han estado en los altos niveles del aparato del Estado, saben que el presidente tiene el poder del bolígrafo.

Que Evo tiene influencia en el actual gobierno es natural, es el líder y el caudillo del partido de gobierno. Pero de ahí a afirmar que tiene el mismo poder que cuando era presidente es absurdo.

Arias, Fernández, Copa, Manfred, Camacho y todas las demás autoridades electas en la subnacionales están obligadas a sentarse a negociar con el gobierno para tener recursos financieros en su gestión. Una gestión sin plata acaba en corto tiempo siendo cuestionada. Por eso, a nadie con poder local o regional le conviene que la crisis económica se agrave.

Mucho más a lideratos como el de Eva Copa o Fernando Camacho que son lideratos emergentes que desean tener proyección nacional.

Del triunfalismo al pánico

Los resultados de la última contienda electoral sub-nacional dibujarán un cuadro político interesante que todavía motiva una serie de lecturas e interpretaciones

Si bien es cierto que, con respecto a las últimas elecciones nacionales y subnacionales, en las que el MAS participó, su votación bajó considerablemente, no es menos cierto que el MAS es la primera y única fuerza política organizada con presencia nacional a lo largo y ancho del país.

Su victoria en más de 240 municipios y el hecho de que casi en todos los lugares donde hubo elecciones subnacionales si no ganó obtuvo el segundo lugar. Sumado al hecho que, aún cuando, no se comparta con sus ideas, es un partido que tiene un proyecto político, una realidad que trae como consecuencia un equilibrio en la balanza electoral.

Después de la euforia comenzó a imperar la sensatez Emergieron voces contrarias al núcleo duro antimasista. Eva Copa fue la primera en señalar que agradecía a Evo por darle la oportunidad de hacer política destacaba su adhesión a la narrativa nacional –popular y al denominado “proceso de cambio” y reiteraba que jamás pactaría con la derecha.

El propio Camacho planteó estar dispuesto a trabajar con todos en función del desarrollo de Santa Cruz y del país.

Todo estaba muy claro: la oposición reconocía el poder y la autoridad del gobierno central, a cambio que éste también reconociera y respetará los espacios de poder regional que los adversarios del MAS habían logrado a través del voto popular conseguido en las urnas.

Se podía prever, en ese contexto, que estaban sentadas las bases para generar un acuerdo político de concertación y convivencia. Acuerdo político del que estarían excluidos figuras como Doria Medina, Tuto Quiroga, Rubén Costas, Luis Revilla, Jeanine Añez y el propio Carlos Mesa no solo por su baja incidencia en la sociedad boliviana, sino porque padecen de Covid político y se encuentran en terapia intensiva entre la muerte o la sobrevivencia política.

in embargo, sorprendentemente, el MAS patea el tablero.  

De manera inesperada introduce en el escenario político el tema del “golpe de Estado” y ordena el apresamiento de ex ministros de Estado y de la ex presidenta Jeanine Añez, desatando así una artillería de procesos y acusaciones judiciales contra la oposición por conspiración y sedición, debido a su supuesta participación en el “golpe” que habría derrocado a Evo Morales. En ese momento, sectores de oposición pasan del triunfalismo al pánico.

Pero ¿por qué el MAS reaccionó así? Cabe preguntarse ¿Lo hizo por debilidad? ¿Cometió un error político? ¿Quiso mostrar su musculatura social y política? O ¿es una jugada política planificada?

Estas interrogantes trataremos de responder.

Desde nuestra óptica, el accionar del MAS tiene dos vertientes: la primera de concepción político-ideológica y la segunda de estrategia política que tiene que ver más que ver con lo que se denomina la real política

Cuando el poder se entiende como la hegemonía y la confrontación

Physically, it is the Czar's old Russian Empire with certain major changes. On the eve of World War I, Nicholas II ruled a domain of 6.8 million square miles with a population of 139 million. It included Poland, semi‐independent Finland and the Baltic states.

Lenin lost almost all the empire in the worst days of 1918‐19. But Germany's defeat and the end of civil war and intervention restored to the Bolsheviks most of Russia—minus Finland, Poland and the Baltic states.

Stalin restored the Empire after World War II.

Today the Kremlin holds direct sway over 8.6 million square miles. The population has risen to 250 million souls, as the Czar would have said. Even that great population figure falls shy of Soviet aspirations.

steadily dropping birthrate, a by‐product of Russian urbanization and that most chronic of Russian problems, overcrowded housing.

All of Russia's ethnics are uneasy and unhappy. This one of the problems Mr. Brezhnev will not touch upon at the Party Congress. The issue is simple: a demand for ethnic and racial equality and justice. The Soviet Union divided into 15 “national republics” and many more ethnic regions and districts. But genuine equality does not exist.

Year after year Moscow purges poets, editors and party leaders in Tashkent, Kiev or Riga on charges of “bourgeois nationalism,” “feudal tendencies” “chauvinism.” In other words, for being local patriots.

no one ever purges Moscow of Great Russian chauvinism.

Mimeographs have circulated among young party members, the Communist Youth, calling for “purity of Russian blood” terms remarkably like Hitler Youth racist language.

in the other Russia, the real Russia, antisemitism is chronic. Russia was the traditional home of the hateful prejudice. Many of Hitler's antisemitic fables were drawn from Russian sources. Today antisemitism is encouraged by official propagandists.

bout 150,000 Jews have migrated from the Soviet Union in recent years. The Soviet census lists something over two million cititzens as ethnic Jews.

The actual total is over three million, perhaps four. But many have assimilated or,prefer to conceal their true identity because of the discriminations—inability to enter the foreign services, the higher cadres of the party, the upper echelons of the army and other elite posts, including academic ones.

The Party Congress will emphasize the positive: the rise in the standard of living, or industrial wages now averaging 146 rubles (about $193) a month against 126 rubles five years ago. Meat consumption has risen; the average Russian ate 40 more eggs in 1974 than in 1970.

But no one will whisper about the private stores to which high party and Government officials have access

The Communist Party is organized from the bottom up. Small cells exist in every unit of Soviet society—office, factory, shop, school, institute, laboratory. These form a local organization directed by a party secretary, appointed by the district or republic secretary, all controlled by the Party Secretariat in Moscow. In theory, the Party Congress, meeting every three to five years, is the supreme authority. In reality, of course, the party is run by an inner oligarchy, the 12‐ to 14‐member Politburo.

Not that the party bosses do not know the realities. They

They know the real Russia but they also know that to hang onto the ladder they must protect their flanks.

the Catholic Church became the most powerful institution of the medieval period.

After the prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 CE, Muslim armies conquered large parts of the Middle East, uniting them under the rule of a single caliph

Under the caliphs, great cities such as Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus fostered a vibrant intellectual and cultural life

Crusaders, who wore red crosses on their coats to advertise their status, believed that their service would guarantee the remission of their sins and ensure that they could spend all eternity in Heaven.

No one “won” the Crusades; in fact, many thousands of people from both sides lost their lives.

Romanesque cathedrals are solid and substantial: They have rounded masonry arches and barrel vaults supporting the roof, thick stone walls and few windows.

Gothic structures, such as the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis in France and the rebuilt Canterbury Cathedral in England, have huge stained-glass windows, pointed vaults and arches (a technology developed in the Islamic world), and spires and flying buttresses. In contrast to heavy Romanesque buildings, Gothic architecture seems to be almost weightless.

illuminated manuscripts: handmade sacred and secular books with colored illustrations, gold and silver lettering and other adornments.

Between 1347 and 1350, a mysterious disease known as the " Black Death " (the bubonic plague) killed some 20 million people in Europe—30 percent of the continent’s population.

Symptoms of the Black Death included fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, terrible aches and pains – and then death. Victims could go to bed feeling healthy and be dead by morning.

The plague killed cows, pigs, goats, chickens and even sheep, leading to a wool shortage in Europe.

Today, scientists know the plague was caused by a bacillus called Yersina pestis, which travels through the air and can also be contracted through the bite of an infected flea or rat, both of which were common in the Middle Ages, especially on ships. 

In a feudal society, the king granted large pieces of land called fiefs to noblemen and bishops. Landless peasants known as serfs did most of the work on the fiefs: They planted and harvested crops and gave most of the produce to the landowner. In exchange for their labor, they were allowed to live on the land.

By 1300, there were some 15 cities in Europe with a population of more than 50,000.

The Renaissance was a time of great intellectual and economic change, but it was not a complete “rebirth”: It had its roots in the world of the Middle Ages.

Feudal lords and leaders of political blocs, including Druze officials and powerful militia, Hezbollah, have begun stockpiling food, while warning that a nationalistic spirit so vividly on display could be splintered by renewed sectarianism if and when times get tougher.

The principle of the equality of taxation was maintained, all citizens were liable. This reflected a confirmation of the abolition of feudalism and an expressed belief in “career open to talent”. There was to be both formal legal equality and equality of opportunities, holding office would depend on ability, loyalty and experience, not accident of birth.

Analysis of the massive votes in favour had undermined their credibility. The organiser of the 1800 plebiscite, Napoleon’s brother, perhaps worried at the Jacobin sympathies of many soldiers, simply added 500,000 votes to the “yes” column for the army. What is more, the system of voting was open rather than by secret ballot and the question in the plebiscite only sought approval for a decision that had already been taken.

In the government Napoleon agreed with Sieyes concept, there should be authority from above and trust from below, of the general nature of the Constitution but instead of 3 Consuls as Sieyes thought Napoleon wanted political authority in his own hand. At the end he accepted maintaining the government with 3 consuls but he named himself the First Consul and ordered that the other two would have no independent executive authority. This showed how Napoleon wanted power. He reinforced his power when in the 2 Constitution he was made the First Consul for life and in the 3 Constitution named himself Emperor. Moreover, Napoleon established effective control over the legislative process. He established a similar control over the executive. Under the Constitution he could appoint the second and third consuls, government ministers, the prefects of the departments of France and the mayor of larger communes. The first three were appointed from the national list and the last from the communal lists. At the centre there was no cabinet system, individual ministers reported directly to Napoleon. All effective decision making was concentrated in his hands, no minister or prefect, for instance, could take action unless sure that it was authorised by Napoleon. This was top-down government, centralised and authoritarian. Even at the local level, holders of government posts were appointed from above, not elected from below. Napoleon’s control of the government system was more absolute than that of the monarchy that ruled in France before 1789.

In terms of liberty, it could be argued that Napoleon fundamentally violated revolutionary principles. Whilst he allowed religious freedom by tolerating all religions, as is expressed in the Organic Articles, the hierarchies of the various churches were under his control. What is more, there was no freedom of speech. Censorship was a key element of Napoleonic rule of France, and those suspected of sedition could be tried and punished outside the normal framework of the law. Nor was there freedom of movement for workers compelled to carry their livret. It also affected Napoleon’s view about the subordinate position of women and children. Whilst a man could imprison an adulterous wife or disobedient child, a married woman had few property rights and could only sue for divorce if a husband insisted on his mistress sharing the family home.

Secondary education was largely restricted to the middle classes and sons of officers in the army. In the 37 schools that were found in France the curriculum was closed supervised. Free thinking was discouraged. Schools taught a utilitarian curriculum based around France, mathematics, history, geography and science and inculcated both military values and loyalty to the regime. Alongside this state system, independent and Catholic schools continued to flourish, despite high fees. In order to bring such schools under closer government supervision, in 1806 Napoleon set up the Imperial University, which was in some respects a kind of nineteenth-century Ofsted, to oversee the curriculum and inspect schools.

Over the next forty-five years, it tried to establish a solid basis for growth and prosperity. It launched an ambitious housing program to create living spaces for its massive and rapidly urbanizing population, and to nurture the growth of a Soviet middle class that had access to amenities and luxury goods. At the same time, it systematically blocked this new middle class from exercising its creative faculties outside a narrow range of approved topics and ideological formulas, and it could not reliably ensure that if someone wanted to buy a winter coat in December, they could find it in the shop. It created a state with the resources and technology to provide for the needs of its citizens, but that was unable to actually deliver the goods.

The USSR moved forward under the weight of these contradictions, first sprinting, then staggering, until it was dismantled by another revolution, one that was orchestrated by the very class of party elites the first one had produced. But the states that emerged from the Soviet Union in 1991, and the people who lived in them, had undergone a profound change in the process.

Schlögel argues that over its sixty-eight years of existence, the Soviet Union did succeed in its goal of creating a “new Soviet person” (novy sovetsky chelovek). But, as he puts it,The new human being was the product not of any faith in a utopia, but of a tumult in which existing lifeworlds were destroyed and new ones born. The “Homo Sovieticus” was no fiction to be casually mocked but a reality with whom we usually only start to engage in earnest when we realize that analyzing the decisions of the Central Committee is less crucial than commonly assumed

Placing the emphasis on modernization rather than ideology allows Schlögel to delineate oft-ignored parallels and connections between the USSR and the United States. In the 1930s, especially, there was a great deal of cultural and technical collaboration between U.S. citizens and their Soviet counterparts, which led to what Hans Rogger called “Soviet Americanism” (sovetsky amerikanizm). “In many respects,” Schlögel writes, Soviet citizens “felt closer to America; America had left behind the class barriers and snobbery of Old Europe. America was less hierarchical; you could rise socially, something otherwise possible only in postrevolutionary Russia, where class barriers had broken down and equality had been universally imposed by brute force.”

As each rose to a position of global economic, political, and military predominance, the British Empire and the United States divided the world into “white” people, who had certain inalienable rights, and “colored” people who did not. The USSR, rising later and faster, made no such distinctions. An Old Bolshevik who had served the revolution for decades was just as likely to end their life freezing on the taiga as a Russian aristocrat or a Kazakh peasant.

Pragmatism and passion were certainly present in the development of the USSR, but they were not the only inputs. Perhaps the crucial factor was the almost limitless cheap labor supplied by impoverished peasants driven off their land, petty criminals, and political undesirables who could be press-ganged into service as part of their “reeducation.”

Between 1932 and 1937, the output of the Dalstroy mine went from 511 kilograms of gold to 51.5 tons. The price of this astonishing growth was paid by the bodies of the prisoners, of whom there were 163,000 by the end of the decade. The writer Varlam Shalamov, Schlögel’s guide through this frozen Malebolge, explains it this way:To turn a healthy young man, who had begun his career in the clean winter air of the gold mines, into a goner, all that was needed, at a conservative estimate, was a term of twenty to thirty days of sixteen hours of work per day, with no rest days, with systematic starvation, torn clothes, and nights spent in temperatures of minus sixty degrees in a canvas tent with holes in it, and being beaten by the foremen, the criminal gang masters, and the guards.

There is no moral calculus that can justify this suffering. And yet Schlögel lays out the brutal, unassimilable fact about the violence of Soviet modernization in the 1930s: “Without the gold of Kolyma . . . there would have been no build-up of the arms industries before and during the Soviet-German war.” The lives of the workers in Kolyma were the cost of winning the Second World War as surely as those of the soldiers at the front.

Of the 250,000 people, most of them prisoners,1 involved in building the 227-kilometer White Sea Canal, around 12,800 are confirmed to have died in the process. Even if the actual number is higher, as it probably is, it is hardly extraordinary when set against the 28,000 people who died in the construction of the 80-kilometer Panama Canal (or the 20,000 who had died in an earlier, failed French attempt to build it), or the tens of thousands killed digging the Suez Canal

it is worth noting that slave labor in mines and building projects, forced starvation of millions through food requisitions, and the destruction of traditional lifeworlds were all central features of the colonial projects that underwrote the building of modernity in the U.S. and Western Europe. To see the mass death caused by Soviet policies in the first decades of Communist rule in a global light—alongside the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the genocide of Indigenous peoples in Africa and the Americas, and the great famines in South Asia—is to see it not as the inevitable consequence of socialist utopianism, but of rapid modernization undertaken without concern for human life.

But Soviet Americanism was about more than cultural affinities. The transformation of the Soviet Union would have been impossible without American expertise.

Curiously enough, Schlögel seems to credit burnout from the era of hypermobilization for the fall of the USSR:Whole societies do not collapse because of differences of opinion or true or false guidelines or even the decisions of party bosses. They perish when they are utterly exhausted and human beings can go on living only if they cast off or destroy the conditions that are killing them

it seems far more accurate to say that the USSR collapsed the way it did because of a generational shift. By the 1980s, the heroic generation was passing away, and the new Soviet people born in the post-war era were comparing life in the USSR not to what it had been like in the bad old Tsarist days, but to what it could be like

Schlögel may be right that “Pittsburgh is not Magnitogorsk,” and that the U.S. was able to transition out of the heroic period of modernization far more effectively than the USSR. But the problems America is currently facing are eerily similar to those of the Soviet Union in its final years—a sclerotic political system dominated by an aging leadership class, environmental degradation, falling life expectancy, a failed war in Afghanistan, rising tensions between a traditionally dominant ethnic group and freedom-seeking minorities, a population that has been promised a higher standard of living than can be delivered by its economic system.

given where things stand in the post-Soviet world of 2023, the gaps tell an important story. The most significant one is around ethnic policy, or what the Soviet Union referred to as “nation-building” (natsional‘noe stroitel‘stvo).

In the more remote parts of the USSR, where national consciousness was still in the process of developing, it raised the more profound question of which groups counted as nations. When did a dialect become a language? If a nation was tied to a clearly demarcated national territory, how should the state deal with nomadic peoples?

The Bolsheviks dealt with this last problem by ignoring it. Lenin believed that “nationality” was basically a matter of language, and language was simply a medium for communication.

Things should be “national in form, socialist in content,” as Stalin famously put it. Tatar schools would teach Tatar children about Marx and Engels in Tatar, and a Kyrgyz novelist like Chinghiz Aitmatov could write socialist realist novels in Kyrgyz.

Unity would be preserved by having each nationality pursue a common goal in their own tongue. This was the reason Lenin did not believe that establishing ethno-territorial republics would lead to fragmentation of the Soviet state

Despite these high and earnest ideals, the USSR’s nationalities policy was as filled with tragedy as the rest of Soviet history. Large numbers of intellectuals from minority nations were executed during the Great Purge for “bourgeois nationalism,” and entire populations were subject to forced relocation on a massive scale.

In practice, Soviet treatment of national minorities was driven not by a commitment to self-determination, but by the interests (often cynical, sometimes paranoid) of whoever happened to be in the Kremlin.

The ethnic diversity of the USSR was a fundamental aspect of the lifeworlds of millions of Soviet citizens, and yet Schlögel barely mentions it.

As is often the case with books about the Soviet Union, it takes life in Moscow and Leningrad to be representative of the whole. But as my friends in Mari El used to say, “Moscow is another country.”

None of this would matter much if it weren’t for the fact that the thirty years since the dismantling of the USSR have been defined in large part by conflicts between and within the successor states over the very questions of nationality and territory raised during the founding of the Soviet Union.

in the former lands of the USSR, barely a year has gone since 1991 without a civil war, insurgency, or invasion fought over control of territory or control of the government of that territory in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 euthanized any remaining hopes that globalization and integration of trade would establish a lasting peace in Eastern Europe. The sense of possibility that animates Schlögel’s meditations on post-Soviet life—the feeling that the lifeworld of kommunalkas and queues had given way to a more vivacious, more dynamic, more forward-looking society that was bound to sort itself out eventually—now belongs definitively to the past. Something has been broken that cannot be fixed.

It is worth noting (Schlögel does not) that of the institutions that survived the dismantling of the Soviet state, the military and intelligence services and the criminal syndicates were the most powerful, in large part because they were so interconnected. In a kind of Hegelian shit-synthesis, the man who established a brutal kind of order after the mayhem of the nineteen-nineties, Vladimir Putin, has deep ties to both. The parts of Soviet communism that ensured a basic standard of living were, for the most part, destroyed in the hideously bungled transition to a market economy. Militarism, chauvinism, and gangster capitalism thrived, as they still do today.

Perhaps it is now possible to see the Soviet century as an anomaly in world history, an interregnum during which two power blocks, each a distorted reflection of the other, marshaled the energies of a modernizing planet in a great conflict over the future. The United States and the USSR both preached a universal doctrine, both claimed they were marching toward the promised land.

The unipolar moment lasted barely a decade, and we have now fallen through the rotten floor of American hegemony to find ourselves once again in the fraught nineteenth century. The wars of today are not between “smelly little orthodoxies,” but between empires and nations, the powerful states that can create their own morality and the small countries that have to find powerful friends

the key difference between 2023 and 1900 is that the process of modernization is, in large parts of the world, complete. What this means for great-power politics in the twenty-first century, we are only beginning to understand.

The economy that Hickel envisions would cease to pursue growth, green or otherwise. Materials and energy will still be consumed, and waste generated, but at much lower levels. All impacts on the natural world will be tethered to the question, “Growth for whom, and to what ends?” In place of an individualistic consumer economy, Hickel’s post-growth economy would direct itself toward the creation of public goods that allow the many to live well—mass transit, health care—rather than to keep a few in luxury.

A growing body of research reveals an inverse relationship between “happiness” and growth beyond a certain point.

In the rich countries, general contentment peaked in 1950, when GDP and real per capita incomes were fractions of their present size (and inequality near modern historic lows); degrowthers posit that similar happiness levels will be reclaimed on the way back down the economic mountain

Hickel describes a post-growth economy defined by stability and equality, and the freedom and leisure possible when the economy is no longer subservient to the god of growth

He estimates that the U.S. economy could be scaled down by as much as 65 percent while still improving the lives of its citizens. This includes the metric most often tied to celebrations of endless growth: life expectancy.

degrowth will entail a steep reduction across a much wider range of high-energy consumer goods. Keeping a global economy within safe ecological limits is a zero-sum game.

When limited resources are directed toward clean energy infrastructure, public health care, and regenerative agriculture, it will still be possible to build and power modern 24-hour hospitals in every city, but not to have Xbox consoles, two-car garages, and giant appliances in every home.

would have to redefine it, too.

The post-growth economy could not succeed solely by redistributing wealth; it would have to redefine it, too.

He argues that short-term growth would have to continue in those countries that have still not achieved the basic levels of sanitation, infrastructure, and education needed for a decent standard of living, to close the gap. Their larger goal, meanwhile, would be to break free from their historical role as a source of natural resources and cheap labor for the north.

For degrowth to be just, global, and effective, the sharpest reduction in consumption will have to come from the north, where the greatest damage to the planet is currently being done

Ecological economists generally agree that the safe outer limit is eight tons

One person in a low-income country has a materials footprint of roughly two tons per year, a measure of total raw materials consumed, including those embodied in imports. In lower-middle–income countries, that number is four tons; in upper-middle–income countries, 12 tons. In the high-income nations of North America, Europe, and Asia, the number leaps to 28

The wealthiest 20 percent of the human population is responsible for 90 percent of “overshoot” carbon in the atmosphere (that is, a level of carbon that exceeds the limit needed to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius)

The planet’s richest one percent has a carbon footprint twice the size of the poorest half of the world’s population combined

For the global north, degrowth not only starts at home, it starts with the biggest houses.

Less Is More doesn’t end in a poetic appreciation for nature’s majesty, but by teasing out its implications for the political project of preserving a habitable planet. Hickel devotes much of the book to explaining that degrowth must be central to this project, promising not just survival, but real democracy, social abundance, and liberation.

Both involve broad social shifts away from private consumption and toward the production of shared public goods.

This beautiful coincidence overlaps with policy programs like the Green New Deal in important way

In July 1979, shortly after installing a set of solar panels over the West Wing, Jimmy Carter did something peculiar for a peacetime president. He asked Americans to sacrifice: to consume less, take public transit more, value community over material things, and buy bonds to fund domestic energy development, including solar

Next to Schumacher’s “Buddhist economics,” Debsian socialism was reformist tinkering. Schumacher didn’t see liberation as a matter of reshuffling the ownership and management structures of the smokestack-powered growth economy. He believed a deeper transformation was needed to maintain a livable planet. This would require new socioecological blueprints “designed for permanence.” As the left and the right battled for control over growth’s levers and spoils, Schumacher pointed out how both had become blind to the rise of growth as its own self-justifying, pan-ideological religion; its patterns of production and consumption, he observed, required “a degree of violence” that did not “fit into the laws of the universe.”

They determined that infinite growth was, in fact, impossible on a finite planet. Barring a major course correction, the team projected, growthism would result in an ecological systems breakdown sometime in the middle of the twenty-first century

This warning, detailed in the 1972 bestseller The Limits to Growth, has aged better than the scorn heaped on it

We are now witnessing what appears to be the beginnings of the collapse predicted nearly 50 years ago

In his new book, Less Is More, Jason Hickel, an anthropologist and journalist, attempts to bring a comprehensive critique of growth closer to the center of the conversation, arguing through a sweeping history of capitalism that it’s uncontrolled growth, not its controlled arrest and reversal, that is the preposterous concept.

This economic and political revolution was reinforced by a complementary scientific one that displaced the lingering animist cosmology of pre-capitalist Europe. The dualism of Francis Bacon and Descartes held reason to be distinct from and superior to matter.

The idea of limitless growth is a relatively recent one. In Less Is More, Hickel traces its origins to the enclosure of the European commons in the sixteenth century

Starving refugees were scattered and forced into a new economy defined by neo-feudal servitude and wage labor. Landowners, meanwhile, began amassing great stores of surplus wealth.

By the mid-1800s, a new “science” had arisen from these assumptions. Neoclassical economics fully abstracted the economy from the natural world. The economy was geared not toward the creation of a happy and prosperous society, but toward the perpetual growth of wealth as its own end, achieved in an inherently virtuous cycle of converting labor and resources into capital, to be accumulated and reinvested in faster and more productive conversions of labor and resources

This ideology subsumed and profaned notions about progress and morality held by the classical economists, until eventually the field even l

This process unfolded despite repeated warnings along the way. Classical economists like John Stuart Mill and, to a lesser extent, Adam Smith not only acknowledged the existence of natural limits to growth, but saw economic development as a phase; at some point, they believed, nations would create enough wealth to pursue other definitions of progres

the caveats issued by Simon Kuznets, father of the concept adopted in the twentieth century as growth’s universal and signature metric: gross domestic product. Kuznets, Hickel points out, “warned that we should never use GDP as a normal measure of economic progress,” because GDP does not distinguish between productive and destructive behavior

Most people encounter the growth debate, if they encounter it at all, through the idea of “green growth.

This is a vision for our collective future based on the belief that technological advance will drastically reduce the amount of raw materials needed to sustain growth—a process known as dematerialization—and “decouple” growing GDP from its ecological impacts.

boosters of the idea point to the transition by rich countries from manufacturing to service-based economies, as well as efficiency gains in energy and in the use of materials

The belief that green growth will save us, also known as “ecomodernism” or “ecopragmatism,” has become a trendy article of faith among elites who acknowledge climate change and the dangers of breaching ecological boundaries

n 2017, Barack Obama threw his support behind the idea in an article for Science magazine, maintaining that signs of decoupling in major economies “should put to rest the argument that combatting climate change requires accepting lower growth or a lower standard of living.”

The argument that capitalism can grow itself out of the present crisis may be soothing to those who like the world as it is. It also relies on the kind of accounting tricks and rejection of reality

By only counting the emissions created within a country that imports most of its cars, washing machines, and computers, you end up pushing the emissions related to their production off the books. When you factor them back in, the picture is much less green. A number of recent studies show no evidence of meaningful decoupling—in energy or materials—even as the world increases its use of renewable energy and finds ways to use some materials more efficiently.

Green growth, Hickel concludes, is an ecologically incoherent “fairy tale.”

consider what the ecomodernist position asks us to believe. The current system requires annual growth of roughly 3 percent to avoid the shock of recession. This means doubling the size of the economy every 23 years

he economy of 2000 must be 20 times larger in the year 2100, and 370 times larger in the year 2200.

Hickel is less interested in the macroeconomic details of this future than are growth critics based in economics departments, like Tim Jackson and Kate Raworth, and more focused on the leisure, security, and general human flourish

he makes an alluring case that degrowth does not require anything like the “command-and-control fiasco of the Soviet Union, or some back-to-the-caves, hair-shirted disaster of voluntary impoverishment.”

Attaining the benefits of the post-growth economy would, however, require what the present consumer society considers “sacrifices.

it’s not clear how many of them are ready to give up its superficial pleasures enabled by consumer debt

Among nations, there’s also the question of fairness: Wouldn’t it be unjust to impose degrowth across the world, when it’s disproportionately the countries of the global north that have spent centuries burning through the planet’s resources?

This output tracks to the one percent’s share of global wealth—a number equal to the GDP of the bottom 169 countries.

Even if you accept the argument that inequality would be best addressed by more centuries of trickle-down growth, you keep running up against the simple fact of its impossibility. Even just one more century of growth—which so far has shown no sign of taking a less destructive form—will require multiple earths

Hickel is serious about bringing the system critiques of E.F. Schumacher and others out of their traditional cloisters and into the streets, and has sought allies in this effort

emphasize what Hickel calls the “beautiful coincidence” of degrowth: that “what we need to do to survive is the same as what we need to do to have better lives.”

Both are internationalist in outlook, and see the world through a lens of climate justice as well as climate equilibrium.

that is, communicating the many benefits of moving beyond the insecurity and terrors of the current system, and building a new society that is sustainable, stable, democratic, and fundamentally better in every way.

the real problem with Mr. Andreessen’s manifesto may be not that it’s too outlandish, but that it’s too on-the-nose.

Neoreactionary thought contends that the world would operate much better in the hands of a few tech-savvy elites in a quasi-feudal system. Mr. Andreessen, through this lens, believes that advancing technology is the most virtuous thing one can do.

And the way we regard that wealth as a product of good decision-making and righteous hard work, no matter how many billions of dollars of investors’ money they may have vaporized, how many other people contributed to their success or how much government money subsidized it

In the case of ordinary individuals, however, debt is regarded as not just a financial failure but a moral one. (If you are successful and have paid your student loans off, taking them out in the first place was a good decision. If you haven’t and can’t, you were irresponsible and the government should not enable your freeloading.)

He articulates (albeit in a refrigerator magnet poetry kind of way) a strain of nihilism that has gained traction among tech elites, and reveals much of how they think about their few remaining responsibilities to society.

This strain of thinking is disdainful of democracy and opposes institutions (a free press, for example) that bolster it. It despises egalitarianism and views oppression of marginalized groups as a problem of their own making.

Who is doing the telling here, and who is being told? It’s not technology (a term so broad it encompasses almost everything) that’s reducing wages and increasing inequality — it’s the ultrawealthy, people like Mr. Andreessen.

It argues for an extreme acceleration of technological advancement regardless of consequences, in a way that makes “move fast and break things” seem modest.

Mr. Andreessen claims to be against authoritarianism, but really, it’s a matter of choosing the authoritarian — and the neoreactionary authoritarian of choice is a C.E.O. who operates as king.

it is taken seriously by people who imagine themselves potential Chief Executive Authoritarians, or at the very least proxies. This includes another Silicon Valley billionaire, Peter Thiel, who has funded some of Mr. Yarvin’s work and once wrote that he believed democracy and freedom were incompatible.

how did they sell so many other people on it? By pretending that for all their wealth and influence, they are not the real elites.

When Mr. Andreessen says “we” are being lied to, he includes himself, and when he names the liars, they’re those in “the ivory tower, the know-it-all credentialed expert worldview,” who are “disconnected from the real world, delusional, unelected, and unaccountable — playing God with everyone else’s lives, with total insulation from the consequences.”

His depiction of academics of course sounds a lot like — well, like tech overlords, who are often insulated from the real-world consequences of their inventions, including but not limited to promoting disinformation, facilitating fraud and enabling genocidal regimes.

“We are told that technology takes our jobs,” Mr. Andreessen writes, “reduces our wages, increases inequality, threatens our health, ruins the environment, degrades our society, corrupts our children, impairs our humanity, threatens our future, and is ever on the verge of ruining everything.”

You can see it in the way we valorize the C.E.O.s of “unicorn” companies who have expanded their wealth far beyond what could possibly be justified by their individual contributions

The argument for total acceleration of technological development is not about optimism, except in the sense that the Andreessens and Thiels and Musks are certain that they will succeed. It’s pessimism about democracy — and ultimately, humanity.

the billionaire classes of Silicon Valley are frustrated that they cannot just accelerate their way into the future, one in which they can become human/technological hybrids and live forever in a colony on Mars

In pursuit of this accelerated post-Singularity future, any harm they’ve done to the planet or to other people is necessary collateral damage. It’s the delusion of people who’ve been able to buy their way out of everything uncomfortable, inconvenient or painful, and don’t accept the fact that they cannot buy their way out of death.

The corpse of this monster, which had annihilated tens of millions of its own citizens and thrown its country back 70 years into the past, was propped up in a corner: it’ll rot on its own, they thought. But it turned out not to be dead.

Our medieval pyramid has stood tall for all that time, its surface changing, but never its fundamental form. And it’s always been a single Russian ruler sitting at its peak: Pyotr I, Nicholas II, Stalin, Brezhnev, Andropov… Today, Putin has been sitting at its peak for more than 20 years.

The Pyramid of Power poisons the ruler with absolute authority. It shoots archaic, medieval vibrations into the ruler and his retinue, seeming to say: “you are the masters of a country whose integrity can only be maintained by violence and cruelty; be as opaque as I am, as cruel and unpredictable, everything is allowed to you, you must call forth shock and awe in your population, the people must not understand you, but they must fear you.”

Judging by recent events, the idea of restoring the Russian Empire has entirely taken possession of Putin.

Yeltsin and the other creators of Perestroika surrounding him not only didn’t destroy the vicious Pyramid of Power, they didn’t bury their Soviet past either – unlike the post-war Germans who buried the corpse of their nazism in the 1950s

Putin didn’t manage to outgrow the KGB officer inside of him, the officer who’d been taught that the USSR was the greatest hope for the progress of mankind and that the west was an enemy capable only of corruption. Launching his time machine into the past, it was as if he were returning to his Soviet youth, during which he’d been so comfortable. He gradually forced all of his subjects to return there as well.

After the war with Georgia and the seizure of its territories, the “peacemaker” Obama offered Putin … a reset of their relations! Which is to say, c’mon, Vladimir, let’s forget all of that and start from scratch. The result of that “reset” was the annexation of Crimea and the war in Eastern Ukraine.

The ideology of Putinism is quite eclectic; in it, respect for the Soviet lies side by side with feudal ethics, Lenin sharing a bed with Tsarist Russian and Russian Orthodox Christianity.

Putin’s favorite philosopher is Ivan Ilyin – a monarchist, Russian nationalist, anti-Semite, and ideologist of the White movement, who was expelled by Lenin from Soviet Russia in 1922 and ended his life in exile

In his articles, Ilyin hoped that, after the fall of Bolshevism, Russia would have its own great führer, who would bring the country up from its knees. Indeed, “Russia rising from its knees” is the preferred slogan of Putin and of his Putinists.

“Under Putin, Russia has gotten up from its knees!” his supporters often chant. Someone once joked: the country got up from its knees, but quickly got down onto all fours: corruption, authoritarianism, bureaucratic arbitrariness, and poverty. Now we might add another: war.

A lot has happened in the last 20 years. The president of the Russian Federation’s face has turned into an impenetrable mask, radiating cruelty, anger, and discontent

Merkel admitted that, in her opinion, Putin lives in his own fantasy land. If that’s so, what’s the point of seriously engaging with such a ruler?

For 16 years, Merkel, who grew up in the GDR and should therefore understand Putin’s true nature, “has established a dialogue”. The results of that dialogue: the seizure of certain territories in Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, the capture of the DPR and LPR, and now: a full-scale war with Ukraine.

Paradoxically, the principle of Russian power hasn’t even remotely changed in the last five centuries.

It was also cultivated by the approval of irresponsible western politicians, cynical businessmen, and corrupt journalists and political scientists.

I met many admirers of Putin in Germany, from taxi drivers to businessmen and professors. One aged participant in the student revolution of ’68 confessed:

“I really like your Putin!”“And why exactly is that?”“He’s strong. Tells the truth. And he’s against America. Not like the slugs we’ve got here.”“And it doesn’t bother you that, in Russia, there’s monstrous corruption, there are practically no elections or independent courts, the opposition is being destroyed, the provinces are impoverished, Nemtsov was murdered, and TV’s become propaganda?”

“No. Those are your internal affairs. If Russians accept all of that and don’t protest, that must mean they like Putin.”Ironclad logic. The experience of Germany in the ’30s didn’t seem to have taught such Europeans anything.

Now, one thing has become clear: with this war, Putin has crossed a line – a red line. The mask is off, the armor of the “enlightened autocrat” has cracked. Now, all westerners who sympathize with the “strong Russian tsar” have to shut up and realize that a full-scale war is being unleashed in 21st-century Europe.

The aggressor is Putin’s Russia. It will bring nothing but death and destruction to Europe. This war was unleashed by a man corrupted by absolute power, who, in his madness, has decided to redraw the map of our world.

If you listen to Putin’s speech announcing a “special operation”, America and Nato are mentioned more than Ukraine. Let us also recall his recent “ultimatum” to Nato. As such, his goal isn’t Ukraine, but western civilization, the hatred for which he lapped up in the black milk he drank from the KGB’s teat.

Who’s to blame? Us. Russians. And we’ll now have to bear this guilt until Putin’s regime collapses

People have finally understood this today. He attacked a free and democratic country precisely because it is a free and democratic country. But he’s the one who’s doomed because the world of freedom and democracy is far bigger than his dark and gloomy lair.