Lately, on the main media, it goes very hastily to label hastily with the term "populism" (understood in the negative meaning of "ideological attitude that, based on principles and programs generically inspired by socialism, exalts in a demagogic and unrealistic way the people as depositary of totally positive values "1 ) any idea, political proposal or event, or allowing to question the effectiveness of the global system of governance and international relations which, in the mind of most opinion leader e opinion maker it is considered a fixed and irreversible point.
Not a day goes by without reading background articles, political-economic analysis, news (often not properly verified or even unfounded) or simple "gossip" that attack and try to delegitimize "regardless" all those international and European political movements ( inspired by nationalist, socialist or pure protest that are) critical of the drift assumed by the current global political and economic-financial system.
Next to them, for a few months there are also two other "enemies" of the new world order that need to be destroyed: we talk about the controversial and cumbersome figures of tycoon Trump and the "Tsar" Putin who, however, are also the Presidents in office of the United States and the Russian Federation.
I understand that the "new" psychological surprise suffered after that of the September 11 by a certain "intellectual aristocracy" unwilling to feel the pulse of the masses may have created for the second time in a fifteen years a flooding frustration for not being able to analyzing, understanding and preventing the new requests that now question the new post-bipolar world capitalist order that the political-economic-financial elites were struggling to improve.
Let us be clear: globalization in itself is neither good nor bad. It is "good" when it induces growth, spurs free competition, overcomes selfishness and particularism, It also becomes "bad" when it flattens without taking into account particular cultures and instances, excludes the weakest from the competition, increases the gap between rich and poor and favors the indiscriminate increase of migratory flows, reducing the sense of security.
As always, in debate and evaluation, it is a matter of being able to distinguish between "tools", "ways" and "ends".
Unfortunately, lately what is being questioned are the ways to use globalization and the aims that are pursued through the current political, economic and financial system: essentially the achievement of profit by those who have access and "count" in the system global and not, as it should be, to guarantee to everyone the accessibility of goods and services once unavailable, to improve the general well-being on the planet and to live in peace by eliminating the possible sources of contrasts on the Planet.
Returning to the attitude of the opinion maker, it would be desirable that, at least now, having noted the "omelette made" by the current "globalized system of relations" that covered and facilitated the "power and profit of the few" passed off as "the interest of many", these "censors" at the service of the media owned by the great oligarchic groups, they endeavored to carry out a minimum of self-criticism.
In practice, it would be to withdraw from the current Manichaean vision by trying to land, from the hyperuranium of abstract universalistic ideals (but enslaved to financial interests), into real politics; ground where we must take into account, as well as the opinions and interests of the Central Banks and the economic and financial giants, even the requests coming from the popular masses.
Rather than continuing to recite the mantra of the ineluctability of globalization, one should admit that this way of understanding globalization has produced an ever-increasing divide between the small community of the richest and the enormous and increasing pockets of new poor. And all those who hold the role and have the responsibility to influence public opinion should seriously challenge their best qualities and intellectual energies to suggest to the decision makers a cure for this "crisis of global capitalism" which, starting from 2008, does not it has yet to be overtaken and, on the contrary, re-proposes itself in waves threatening to end the globalized capitalist system as we know it.
A lucid analysis by James Petras2 , argues not without valid reasons that, progressively, the "crises of capitalism" have become only "crisis for workers". That is to say that the expense is always the weakest.
But instead of curing the disease, we are stubborn to curse its symptoms, such as the recent unexpected "Brexit" that has shaken the peaceful sleep of the European political-financial establishment.
If we looked deeper, instead, in addition to the striking case of the bailout of Greece, we would notice in time the silent landslides caused by the disruption of the current "globalized capitalist system" induced in turn by a savage way of privatizing and creating profit.
One of these "silent" landslides in the system was, for example, the case of the nationalization of banks in Iceland, which occurred in parallel with the start of a process of direct and participated democracy and defined by some as a real "silent revolution".3 ". In this way the Icelanders have regained their rights and rewritten a new Constitution despite the economic interests opposed by England and Holland and "in spite of" pressure from the entire international financial system. Virtually in almost all European countries dangerous centrifugal forces are in progress that can not be analyzed and liquidated with the category of hated "populism".
And, even in the United States, the profound crises of the two-year period 2008-2009 have provoked a wide debate on the validity of the global capitalist system conceived without the counterweights of adequate policies of redistribution and support for the weakest. Debate that led to the victory of the controversial President Trump in the recent round of free elections.
Despite all the signs, the ruling classes of the various economic and government systems and, unfortunately, even the media continue to pay proper attention to the possible care to be practiced to this "sick giant".
In this way, progressively, within the various States the gap between capitalism and social welfare, between the decisions taken by governments and their constituents.
For those who ride the wave of the electorate's discontent, it is therefore easy to support the demagogic thesis that the Western democracies have been replaced by puppet governments placed under the control of the large economic-financial lobbies in whose coffers the politicians connive with the bankers they pour public wealth into the private coffers of finance by increasing the gap between the rich class and the masses of "new poor"4.
In fact, we can not but admit that the current capitalist system, as it has evolved over the last decade, places itself on the opposite side of the objectives of social equality, expansion of democracy and the achievement of the collective well-being that had been hoped for. establishment of globalization.
Moreover, as is shown by the increase in the number of Islamic terrorist attacks in the heart of Europe, also on the side of security, this way of understanding capitalism and globalization is providing alibi for the radicalization of the Islamist type and the recruitment of new fighters for the so-called "defensive jihad"5.
The enormous and growing pockets of poverty and marginalization that inhabit the suburbs of large and medium-sized European cities, unfortunately constitute fertile humus for anomalous behavior and, therefore, also for radicalization.
While we are wondering about the great dilemma of the kind of most effective answers and we are divided between the hardliners (with related limitations of personal freedoms) and those who, instead, support the validity of a longer term path based on education cultural heritage and the values of freedom, tolerance and peaceful coexistence, perhaps the main cause of all is lost sight of.
Such an idea of globalization has, moreover, also favored the establishment, on the part of the electorates (and sometimes also by the political leadership) of an increasing questioning, both in Europe and overseas, of cooperative behavior that until recently ago formed a common cultural heritage.
Of course, the right answer can not be that of ultra-nationalist and xenophobic movements; the solution can not be sic et simpliciter to disengage from Europe or to initiate protectionist policies.
It will be the same global capitalist system, if it does not want to be overwhelmed by the growing discontent in all areas of the globe, to play-force find corrections that guarantee the use for public welfare of a part of those riches that currently end up in private hands.
Central banks, even if not necessarily nationalized, rather than acting in an often self-referential manner or in the interests of large groups, must finally begin to operate in the service of politics; to act, that is, for the realization of policies of social welfare and development of the communities or of the individual States, rather than to safeguard the profit of the few.
In short, financial institutions should be rethought as tools to create productive employment, to contribute to social well-being and to respect and preserve the environment.
In this framework, i opinion makerinstead of continuing to fill the pages of newspapers and blogs making a mockery of the Trump Administration's provisions, demonizing Putin or singing victorious hymns for the failed victory in the Netherlands of Wilders' right-wing anti-EU party and the escaped NEXIT would make better service to the community if they animated a fruitful debate on how to rethink capitalism and globalization in the service of man.
Note:
1. See the entry on Treccani Vocabulary online
2. Born in Boston in 1937 from Greek parents who emigrated from the island of Lesbos, he is retired professor for the chair of sociology at the University of Binghamton, New York and adjunct professor at Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
3. See the entry "Silent revolution" on Treccani Encyclopedia online.
4. According to a Financial Times article (see 9 January 2012 on Pag.5) in America "the inequalities between the 1% vertex and the 99% underlies reached record proportions. The CEOs of the companies earn 325 times the salary of an average worker ".
5. See the essay "France and the threat of fighting Islamist terrorism. Politicians, intellectuals and operators question themselves ", Elisa Pelizzari, 2017
(photo: Defense)
