 |
Europa às voltas para escolher um líder
O PÚBLICO está a fazer um inquérito online no qual os leitores são confrontados com a seguinte pergunta: “Quem deve escolher o presidente da Comissão Europeia?” 75% responderam “Os eleitores” e 25% “O Parlamento Europeu”. A opção “Os líderes dos países da UE”, até ontem, tinha recebido zero votos. Este inquérito exprime o que talvez a generalidade dos europeus sentem, ou seja, quando votam, querem que o seu voto conte para alguma coisa.
O líder da Comissão é tradicionalmente escolhido pelos chefes de governo, mas as novas regras prevêem que sejam tidos em conta os resultados das eleições. Mas na Europa ninguém se entende. Ontem foi a vez de Cameron avisar que o Reino Unido pode deixar a União, se Juncker for o eleito para suceder a Barroso. O imbróglio é tal que já se começa a falar em nomes alternativos, alguns dos quais nem deram a cara nas eleições. E assim vai a Europa.
|
segunda-feira, 2 de junho de 2014
Europa às voltas para escolher um líder
domingo, 1 de junho de 2014
Com tinta, floreiras e bancos, a câmara quer devolver o coração dos bairros aos lisboetas
Com tinta, floreiras e bancos, a
câmara quer devolver o coração dos bairros aos lisboetas
INÊS BOAVENTURA
02/06/2014 - PÚBLICO
O programa Uma Praça em Cada Bairro contempla 30 intervenções
"prioritárias", que poderão tornar-se uma realidade já a partir do
próximo ano.
Com algumas latas
de tinta, floreiras, bancos e outro mobiliário urbano, a Câmara de Lisboa quer
intervir em 30 ruas e largos da cidade, para permitir que os cidadãos deles se
apropriem, tornando-os “espaços aglutinadores da vida local”. A ideia, explica
o vereador Manuel Salgado, é que, depois de testadas, essas soluções
“reversíveis” de baixo custo possam tornar-se definitivas.
Uma Praça em Cada
Bairro é o nome deste programa, que foi apresentado na última reunião
camarária. No documento distribuído na ocasião, o vereador do Urbanismo lembra
que “são os espaços públicos que dão identidade às cidades” e sublinha a
necessidade de estes voltarem a constituir “o ponto de encontro de todos” e não
apenas “um espaço sobrante, um resto, sem autonomia nem estrutura própria”.
Definir quais são
afinal os bairros de Lisboa foi, admite o chefe da Divisão de Projectos e
Estudos Urbanos, Pedro Dinis, um dos primeiros desafios que se colocaram à
equipa que desenvolveu este programa. Essa ideia é também vincada no texto de
enquadramento do mesmo, no qual se frisa que “o bairro não possui uma definição
precisa”, sendo “uma unidade teórica que na maioria dos casos não possui uma
expressão administrativa física”, pelo que a sua delimitação é “algo imprecisa
e discutível”.
Segundo as contas
do município, em Lisboa existem 230 bairros, nos quais haverá qualquer coisa
como 150 "centralidades", ruas e praças com características que lhes
permitirão ter “um papel de aglutinação social”, como explica o arquitecto
Pedro Dinis. Em conjunto com as juntas, foram escolhidas as 30 consideradas
“prioritárias”, que incluem pelo menos uma em cada uma das 24 freguesias da
cidade. Ajuda, Arroios, Avenidas Novas, Campo de Ourique, Estrela e Santo António
têm, cada uma, duas intervenções previstas.
A intenção, de
acordo com o chefe da divisão de projectos e estudos urbanos, é que para
alcançar um desses espaços os munícipes não tenham de andar mais do que dez ou
15 minutos a pé. O arquitecto diz que as ruas e largos em causa têm “escalas
muito distintas” (que variam, por exemplo, entre a do Largo do Rato e a da
Praça Norte, nos Olivais), mas acrescenta que “em muitos casos” a solução a
adoptar passa no essencial por promover a pedonalização de áreas hoje
consagradas aos automóveis. A Avenida Duque de Ávila é apresentada como um bom
exemplo daquilo que agora se pretende.
Na documentação
que distribuiu, o vereador Manuel Salgado reconhece que este “é um programa
ambicioso”, por estarem em causa “muitas intervenções que necessitam de
projectos mais ou menos complexos e exigem um investimento significativo na sua
concretização total”. Daí que, justifica, se tenha decidido, “para adequar o
programa à capacidade financeira e de realização do município e das freguesias,
mas também para testar algumas das soluções de reorganização viárias
propostas”, apostar numa primeira fase na “adopção de soluções reversíveis”.
Como? “Alterando
a organização do espaço público com recurso a pintura no pavimento, floreiras e
outros elementos de mobiliário urbano amovíveis”, explica o autarca com os
pelouros do Urbanismo e do Espaço Público. Questionado pelos jornalistas sobre
o horizonte temporal em que este programa será concretizado, Manuel Salgado
sustentou que “muitas das intervenções têm condições para ficar prontas neste
mandato”, até porque não necessitam de muito mais do que “umas latas de tinta,
uns bancos e umas floreiras”.
Da apresentação
entregue aos vereadores e jornalistas, consta um “faseamento” que parece mais
optimista: aí diz-se que as “intervenções low cost” serão realizadas ao longo
de 2015 e que no ano seguinte serão lançadas e concluídas as empreitadas que
irão permitir tornar definitiva a instalação de uma praça em cada bairro. Sobre
os custos que isso terá não se fala em lado nenhum.
Na reunião da
Câmara de Lisboa que se realizou na passada semana foram apresentadas, de forma
sucinta, as soluções que se prevê concretizar em Picoas, Saldanha, nos largos
do Calvário, do Rato e da Igreja de Benfica e na Praça Norte. No caso do Largo
do Calvário, por exemplo, está a ser equacionada, por sugestão da Junta de
Freguesia de Alcântara, a reposição de um fontanário antes existente, além da
criação de um novo pavimento e da plantação de árvores. Quanto ao Largo do
Rato, o arquitecto Pedro Dinis adiantou que está a ser pensada a instalação de
uma rotunda, que já ali existiu no passado, e o regresso do eléctrico.
“São as pessoas
que fazem a rua, a praça, o espaço público. O importante não é a obra, é a
forma como o espaço é adquirido. Preocupam-me muito pouco os desenhos
apresentados”, comentou o vereador dos Direitos Sociais. João Afonso considera
que nesta fase o mais importante é mesmo “alargar a discussão” sobre este
programa, para lá dos executivos da câmara e das juntas de freguesia.
O Plaza Program,
que desde 2008 se vem realizando anualmente em Nova Iorque, é um dos exemplos
de que a Câmara de Lisboa se socorreu para o desenvolvimento do programa Uma
Praça em Cada Bairro. No caso da cidade norte-americana, a iniciativa é do
departamento dos transportes, em articulação com entidades sem fins lucrativos,
e visa garantir que todos os habitantes têm acesso a um espaço público “de
qualidade” e “vibrante”, que fique a menos de dez minutos a pé dos locais em
que se encontram.
Em Lisboa, Manuel
Salgado explica que aquilo que no essencial se prevê fazer é "requalificar
cada uma destas microcentralidades aumentando as áreas de estar ao ar livre,
tornando-as mais confortáveis e seguras – alargar passeios, instalar
esplanadas, plantar árvores, criar sombras, reintroduzir a água como elemento
de paisagem urbana, atenuar o impacto do tráfego automóvel –, mas também
incentivar a instalação de comércio e equipamentos colectivos de
proximidade". Para, resume o autarca, citando o arquitecto e urbanista
brasileiro Jaime Lerner, se transformar a cidade "no ponto de encontro das
pessoas que alimenta a centelha criativa do génio urbano
Arianna Huffington: 'I'm optimistic about the media - even newspapers'
Arianna Huffington: 'I'm optimistic about the media -
even newspapers'
The Huffington
Post's founder on its new emphasis on lifestyle and wellbeing, life at AOL –
and leaning back like a cat
Jane Martinson and Mark Sweney
The Guardian, Sunday 1 June 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/01/arianna-huffington-post-optimistic-industry-lifestyle
As the finale to her week-long stay in London
While news and politics remains HuffPo's No
1 content category, with 40m monthly uniques in the US
"We will continue to be a politics and
news site that is No 1 in
the States and continues to grow everywhere," says Huffington. "We
are not in anyway detracting from that, but we are also going to continue to
invest a lot of resources and time in Third Metric messages." The Third
Metric – a third way of defining success, beyond the old metrics of money and
power – is an idea set out in her new book Thrive, which she launched in the UK
(at No 11 Downing Street, naturally, with George Osborne as host) during her
London trip.
HuffPo's UK editor-in-chief, Carla Buzasi,
was given the additional role of global director of lifestyle in January, and
it was announced last week that the site will work with four top London media
agencies to "introduce the Third Metric concept to their employees".
Not a few eyebrows have been raised at the prospect of cynical, hardboiled
media buyers being taught how to "make room in [their] lives for
wellbeing, wisdom, wonder and giving" at workshops including yoga,
massages, mindfulness sessions, "and even happiness coaching from
happiness and wellbeing activist Susie Pearl".
Huffington has been an evangelist for
getting enough sleep, turning off digital devices and reconnecting with family
and friends ever since a "wake-up call" in 2007 when she collapsed
from exhaustion at her desk and fractured a cheekbone. Yet anyone who thinks
that her 14th book is about kicking back and taking more time off fundamentally
misunderstands Thrive, and indeed Huffington herself.
Thrive is often described as the antithesis
to another book calling for women to make changes in their lives, Sheryl
Sandberg's Lean In. Yet Huffington frequently appears on platforms with the
Facebook chief operating officer, and Thrive's first endorsement is from
Sandberg. Huffington, so fond of pets that she devotes a chapter to "furry
friends with different benefits", uses an animal analogy to explain why
the books are similar. "It is so easy to misunderstand," she sighs.
"You also need to learn to lean back, as like a cat you need to lean back
in order to jump higher." So sleep and rest are "performance
enhancement tools", not an alternative to success but a way of achieving
it.
Asked if she's a feminist, Huffington – who
published The Female Woman in the 70s, slating the "brainwashing"
women's liberation movement – replies "absolutely". Thrive calls for
a "third women's revolution" to end male-dominated workplaces which
consider burnout "a badge of honour". Her own life, writing from home
when her daughters (now grown-up) were small but remaining ambitious enough to
set up her company, embodies the idea that women should be able to succeed
financially and work at home for a period while caring for children. Her model
of self-fulfilment still offers a marked contrast to the sisterly solidarity of
early feminists, of course.
One of the obvious objections to the book is
that it's all very well for a multimillionaire to write about needing to sleep
more when many women on low incomes struggle to put food on the table.
"The more you can take care of your own human capital, tap into your inner
strength and resources, the more resilient you will be," is all she will
say.
Perhaps the biggest criticism of Huffington
is that she made her millions off the back of unpaid volunteers. Indeed Google
her name and "unpaid bloggers" still comes up as the most common
search term. She is adamant that she has done nothing wrong: "This fails
to understand the nature of the internet and platforms," she says. No one
asks why Facebook won't share some of its IPO proceeds, she says, or why
contributors to Tumblr (sold to Yahoo for $1bn) received nothing. Asked why the
Post continues to use unpaid volunteers, she says: "I think it's because
we're the first media company to really elevate blogging. In 2005 people were
making fun of bloggers, saying they were people who couldn't get a job, sitting
in their parents' basements, but we brought in politicians and
celebrities." Besides, she says, look at the homeless teenage blogger
offered a place at Harvard and all those given TV shows or book deals. These
few examples will not be enough to satisfy the 9,000 who lodged a legal appeal
against the AOL deal.
She ducks a question about whether she
faces more criticism as a woman but says of Jill Abramson's departure as editor
of the New York Times, "there's no question that the language being used –
that she was 'brash', 'abrasive' – these are words almost exclusively used
about women. Men tend to be 'driven' and 'authoritative'. There's no question
that there is a double standard for women at the top. That language has
definitely been used about me over the years – that I am difficult or demanding
– absolutely."
There have been rumours about her departure
from AOL – she signed a four-year contract which ends next year – but she says
she intends to continue working with chief executive Tim Armstrong. "HuffPo
is a standalone with AOL as the parent company while we totally determine our
editorial policies. There's one year left, but Tim and I want to renew it. So
there's no change."
An Indian edition is due this year, and
Huffington is keen on "groundbreaking" journalism exploring
"solutions". "We've [so far] done three big projects, around
creating jobs, women's non-profits and social entrepreneurship. We are
prioritising [solutions] as seriously as covering corruption and speaking to power,
which is a very big departure for journalists, because [stories like these
were] traditionally seen as fluffy."
Her eldest daughter, who previously worked
for the family firm, now has a job at Participant Media, the production company
behind films such as An Inconvenient Truth, and Huffington is thrilled. "I
am very optimistic about the future media industry. I am even optimistic about
the future of newspapers."
Would she launch a business using her first
name? After all, she's becoming a bit like Oprah or Beyoncé with no need for
the surname. "I've learned never to rule out anything. Remember I ruled
out doing another book and here we are discussing Thrive. But having said that,
I love the combination of what I'm doing: HuffPost and taking the message of
Thrive around the world and across all our international editions." And
we're left with that image of a cat leaning back in order to jump even higher.
Curriculum vitae
Age 64
Career 1974 author The Female Woman 1980
After Reason 1981 Maria Callas: The Woman Behind the Legend 1983 The Gods of
Greece 2003 Pigs at the Trough 2005 launches Huffington Post 2007 author, On
Becoming Fearless … in Love, Work, and Life 2010 Third World America: How Our
Politicians Are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream
2011 sells Huffington Post to AOL
US set to unveil rules to cut carbon pollution from power plants by 30%
US set to unveil rules to cut
carbon pollution from power plants by 30%
Barack Obama's ambitious plan to circumvent Congress could transform US
energy economy and global climate change talks
Suzanne
Goldenberg, US
theguardian.com,
Monday 2 June 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/02/us-emissions-rules-aim-cut-carbon-pollution-power-plants-30-per-cent
The Obama
administration will propose sweeping new environmental rules on Monday, cutting
carbon pollution from existing power plants by 30% over 2005 levels by 2030,
according to people briefed on the plan.
The new
power plant rules – which will be formally announced by the Environmental
Protection Agency on Monday morning – represent the most ambitious effort by
Barack Obama or any other president to deal with climate change.
The
regulations could lead to a sweeping transformation of America
The rules
could also break open negotiations for a global climate change deal, the United
Nations climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said.
The 30%
target, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, represents the first attempt
by any president to regulate carbon pollution from power plants.
Obama had
initially sought to deal with climate change through Congress. But after that
effort collapse, and with Republicans in Congress uniformly opposed to cutting
carbon emissions – or even denying climate change was occuring – Obama decided
last year to use his executive authority to cut carbon pollution.
The White
House and the EPA would not comment on the report.
Power plants
are the largest single source of carbon pollution, accounting for nearly 40% of
the emissions that cause climate change.
Obama, in
his weekly radio address on Saturday, said it was past time to set national
limits on carbon dioxide emissions – just as the EPA has done for years with
arsenic, mercury and other toxins.
“Right now
there are no national limits to the amount of carbon pollution that existing
plants can pump into the air we breathe. None,” he said. “They can dump
unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air. It's not smart, it's not
safe, and it doesn't make sense.”
Carbon
dioxide emissions from power plants had been falling since 2005, because of the
economic downturn and because of the switch from coal to cheaper natural gas.
Ethan Zindler
of Bloomberg New Energy Finance said the power industry was already about a
third of the way towards the 30% goal.
But
emissions crept up last year and again in the first months of 2014, and the
regulations would put America
Andrew
Steer, the chief executive of the World Resources Institute, said it was a
“momentous development” for America
“It's the
most important action available to cut US emissions – and the Obama
administration has seized the opportunity,” he said. “These new standards send
a powerful message around the world that it's time to face the global threat of
climate change.”
The rules
could affect some 1,600 power plants. About 600 of these operate on coal,
including many that are nearly 50 years old and will have the most difficulty
meeting the new standards.
Under the
rule, states and power companies will have a range of options to meet the new
standards: switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas; forming
cap-and-trade markets; expanding renewables such as wind and solar power; or
encouraging customers to use less energy by moving to more efficient heating
and cooling systems and appliances.
That's a
departure for the EPA, which generally has focused on curbing emissions from
specific smoke stacks.
But the
Natural Resources Defense Council, which produced models that helped guide the
EPA, said a system-wide approach would make it easier and cheaper for power
companies to reach the new standard.
The 30%
national target will not be applied uniformly across the country. The EPA will
set individual reductions targets for each state, taking into account their
energy mix, according to those briefed on the plan.
States have
until 2016 to come up with a strategy for meeting the targets. However, the EPA
rules will not come into force in all states until 2020, according to one
individual briefed on the plan.
“They are
not going to spread it out smoothly all over the place like creamy peanut
butter,” said Vicky Arroyo, who heads the climate centre at the George University
The idea is
to take account of the available energy sources in each state, as well as the
measures some states have already undertaken to cut carbon pollution.
North-eastern states have already cut their power plant emissions by 40%
compared with 2005.
Arroyo said
it was possible the rule could bring about the same level of reductions in
carbon pollution as a climate change bill that was defeated by Congress five
years ago.
The new EPA
rule bypasses Congress, relying on Obama's executive authority and Supreme
Court decisions, to propose new rules under the Clean Air Act.
The Chamber
of Commerce, the country's biggest business lobby, said last week the new rules
would cost the economy $51bn and put 224,000 people out of work.
Coal-mining
companies, some power companies and Republican state officials have accused the
EPA of overstepping its authority, and will be studying the bill closely for
possible legal challenges.
In their
rebuttal to Obama's radio address, the Republicans said the new standards would
"kill coal" and lead to power outages.
"We'll
all be paying a lot more money for electricity – if we can get it," said Wyoming
But Obama
has been marshalling his own supporters. Environmental and public health groups
have been pushing hard for the new rules.
Researchers
from Harvard and Syracuse
That
campaign effort is due to pick up again on Monday. Obama is scheduled to hold a
conference call with the American Lung Association and other public health
groups on Monday afternoon.
White House
officials spent Sunday briefing governors and business leaders about the new
rule.
Onde pára o socialismo, e para onde vai o PS?
 |
| ( ...) "E é importante que a esquerda dita socialista, que esteve no poder em diversos países europeus e abriu as portas à globalização – em aliança com o neoliberalismo –, assuma as suas responsabilidades perante a atual desilusão do eleitorado.” |
“A história já nos ensinou
que quando as instituições são incapazes de realizar as reformas necessárias,
os níveis de crispação sobem de tom e as ruturas podem ser dramáticas. Os 57
por cento de europeus (e 66 por cento de portugueses) que se abstiveram estão
zangados com a democracia, mas mais crispadas estão as forças extremistas em
crescimento, em especial os nacionalismos que apostam na destruição da UE e do
Estado social. Contudo, hoje já não é tanto em nome do futuro que as pessoas se
mobilizam, mas sim pela recusa de um passado humilhante ou de um presente
desprezível. E é importante que a esquerda dita socialista, que esteve no poder
em diversos países europeus e abriu as portas à globalização – em aliança com o
neoliberalismo –, assuma as suas responsabilidades perante a atual desilusão do
eleitorado.”
OPINIÃO
Onde pára o socialismo, e para
onde vai o PS?
ELÍSIO ESTANQUE
02/06/2014 - PÚBLICO
As oportunidades de reflexão e debate ideológico são tão escassas que
importa aproveitar este momento de instabilidade para colocar algumas
interrogações.
“Portugal é uma
República soberana, baseada na dignidade da pessoa humana e na vontade popular
e empenhada na construção de uma sociedade livre, justa e solidária.”, diz o
artigo 1.º da Constituição da República Portuguesa. Seria irónico se não fosse
dramático. Tal é o desajuste entre este desígnio e a realidade atual do nosso
país, onde a situação de “exceção” que temos vivido tem ameaçado ou suprimido
cada um destes princípios. E, sendo assim, que sentido tem falar de socialismo?
O PS entrou em
ebulição, mas para que o debate não se esgote na “contagem de espingardas” e na
sucessão de manobras em curso nos últimos dias, porque não recolocar o
“Socialismo” no horizonte, quando, como toda a gente percebe, os sinais de
irritação popular com o statu quo estão a chegar ao limite? Há um amplo “bloco
social” a exigir uma “nova agenda” que o PS tem de saber atrair, declarou
António Costa. As oportunidades de reflexão e debate ideológico são tão
escassas que importa aproveitar este momento de instabilidade (de “PREC do PS”,
como alguém disse no Facebook) para colocar algumas interrogações,
independentemente da atual ou futura liderança do partido (onde ainda estou
filiado).
O atual Partido
Socialista, como outros dos seus pares europeus, perdeu a noção do significado
da palavra que ostenta no seu próprio nome e por isso vale a pena lembrar que,
por detrás da sigla, está um conceito a requerer uma nova atualização e um novo
projeto de sociedade. Hoje, infelizmente, a simbologia e os acrónimos apenas
escondem o enorme vazio deixado pela ausência de ideologia. O resto fica por
conta dos rituais e encenações que tanto encantam o carreirismo burocrático dos
aparelhos partidários, onde o PS é exemplar. O combate ideológico perdeu sentido?
O socialismo e o marxismo foram enterrados nos escombros do Muro de Berlim? E,
já agora, onde pára a social-democracia?
Reconheça-se que,
com a nossa soberania hoje tão mitigada e bloqueados que estamos (quer no plano
interno quer europeu), este tipo de debates pode parecer inócuo. Porém, seja na
escala nacional seja na UE ou a nível global – ou simplesmente em nome dos
princípios programáticos –, creio que um partido que ostenta o nome de
Socialista não pode deixar de se interrogar: das duas uma, ou concordamos que o
capitalismo que temos é fantástico e não existem alternativas ao poder dos
mercados, ou admitimos que este sistema nos está a empurrar para uma nova
barbárie onde a desregulação e o neoliberalismo já excederam todos os limites. E
nesse caso talvez valha a pena tentar agarrar naquela velha palavra escondida
atrás do “S”, outrora demonizada e hoje esquecida, e levantá-la do chão.
Após o triste
espetáculo da reunião do Vimeiro, devemos perguntar não só onde pára o
Socialismo mas onde pára a ousadia e a irreverência da esquerda? Onde está a
prioridade dos interesses do país acima dos do partido? O aparelho cega e, como
dizia o José Pacheco Pereira, “eles sabem, mas não aprendem”!
Como é óbvio,
nenhum dos parceiros que assinou o programa de resgate pode, de repente, lavar
daí as suas mãos, porque o “pós-troika” inclui uma “carta de intenções” e um
“tratado orçamental europeu” que o PS subscreveu. Ninguém ignora que as
exigências da governação, as condicionantes internacionais e os compromissos
com os credores comprometeram profundamente o PS. Entendo no entanto que, da
parte de um Partido Socialista e de uma família social-democrata europeia que
já fizeram tantas cedências, que abraçaram as terceiras vias, o pragmatismo e o
neoliberalismo económico cujos resultados foram desastrosos para os cidadãos (e
subverteram a matriz socialista), depois de tanto falhanço, de tanto esforço
inglório e de consequências dramáticas para milhões de desempregados,
emigrantes e excluídos, não será pedir demais solicitar-lhes que condimentem o
seu “realismo pragmático” com um pouco mais de utopia. Parece-me urgente, até
para fazer jus a todo o legado humanista e republicano que desde o século XIX
espalharam sonhos pelas camadas sociais mais humildes e exploradas, resgatar a
ideia de Socialismo e posicioná-la no século XXI. Repensá-la no coração de uma
Europa que foi berço de todos esses sonhos mas que hoje se encontra
desorientada e perdida de si própria. Sem dúvida que o Socialismo do futuro não
terá o mesmo significado da “sociedade sem classes” invocada no 1º artigo da
Constituição de 1976, mas um partido que se queira “socialista” precisa de
evitar que a real politik e a urgência da governação atirem para o lixo o que
deve ser um desígnio estratégico de longo prazo: um conceito de sociedade
alternativa. Com a economia global e a crise europeia a incendiarem
descontentamentos e radicalismos nas mais diversas latitudes, qualquer projeto
dirigido para a mudança e o progresso tem de saber construir alternativas a
este capitalismo predador, se quer chamar a si os descontentes.
A história já nos
ensinou que quando as instituições são incapazes de realizar as reformas
necessárias, os níveis de crispação sobem de tom e as ruturas podem ser
dramáticas. Os 57 por cento de europeus (e 66 por cento de portugueses) que se
abstiveram estão zangados com a democracia, mas mais crispadas estão as forças
extremistas em crescimento, em especial os nacionalismos que apostam na
destruição da UE e do Estado social. Contudo, hoje já não é tanto em nome do
futuro que as pessoas se mobilizam, mas sim pela recusa de um passado
humilhante ou de um presente desprezível. E é importante que a esquerda dita
socialista, que esteve no poder em diversos países europeus e abriu as portas à
globalização – em aliança com o neoliberalismo –, assuma as suas
responsabilidades perante a atual desilusão do eleitorado.
Ora, a mesma
lógica que nos revela essa tensão entre as instituições e a sociedade pode
também aplicar-se à estrutura dos partidos, e ao PS em concreto. Ou seja,
quando as bases deixam de se rever nas opções dos dirigentes criam-se condições
e legitimidade (política) para manifestarem a sua indignação e, se necessário,
se rebelarem contra o statu quo da “partidite”. Após a última reunião da Comissão
Nacional ter confirmado a primazia do aparelhismo e da burocracia sobre a
efetiva abertura e renovação, o dilema que resta é este: ou entra-se num
processo de lenta agonia e subalternização do PS, para satisfação da direita e
da extrema-esquerda; ou as bases do partido optam pela “desobediência civil” e
obrigam a direção – e as estruturas federativas – a convocar um Congresso que
clarifique a questão da liderança, do projeto para o país e das alianças. O
debate em torno do socialismo, em torno da compatibilidade/ contradição entre
capitalismo-democracia, assim como a busca de respostas a uma crise económica
que é, cada vez mais, estrutural, terão de prosseguir. Estamos num momento em
que, como assinalou Slavoj Žižek, “só a mudança global radical pode resolver os
problemas particulares”. Resta saber se o atual PS tem condições de ser um
protagonista central nessa reflexão, ou se o debate terá de ocorrer fora (e sob
os despojos) de um PS agonizante e em fragmentação.
Sociólogo,
militante do PS n.º 27.275/ Federação de Coimbra
Savage capitalism is back – and it will not tame itself
 |
Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York 's Times Square .
‘A miserly 1% are presiding over a social order marked by increasing social,
economic and even technological stagnation.’ Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images
Savage capitalism is back – and it will not tame
itself
Capitalists spread
prosperity only when threatened by global rivalry, radical movements and the
risk of uprisings at home
David Graeber
The Guardian, Friday 30 May 2014 / http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/savage-capitalism-back-radical-challenge?CMP=twt_gu
Back in the 90s, I used to get into
arguments with Russian friends about capitalism. This was a time when most
young eastern European intellectuals were avidly embracing everything
associated with that particular economic system, even as the proletarian masses
of their countries remained deeply suspicious. Whenever I'd remark on some
criminal excess of the oligarchs and crooked politicians who were privatising
their countries into their own pockets, they would simply shrug.
"If you look at America, there were
all sorts of scams like that back in the 19th century with railroads and the
like," I remember one cheerful, bespectacled Russian twentysomething
explaining to me. "We are still in the savage stage. It always takes a
generation or two for capitalism to civilise itself."
"And you actually think capitalism
will do that all by itself?"
"Look at history! In America Europe ,
you had the social welfare state … "
"But, Sergei," I protested (I
forget his actual name), "that didn't happen because capitalists just
decided to be nice. That happened because they were all afraid of you."
He seemed touched by my naivety.
At that time, there was a series of
assumptions everybody had to accept in order even to be allowed to enter
serious public debate. They were presented like a series of self-evident
equations. "The market" was equivalent to capitalism. Capitalism
meant exorbitant wealth at the top, but it also meant rapid technological
progress and economic growth. Growth meant increased prosperity and the rise of
a middle class. The rise of a prosperous middle class, in turn, would always
ultimately equal stable democratic governance. A generation later, we have
learned that not one of these assumptions can any longer be assumed to be
correct.
The real importance of Thomas Piketty's
blockbuster, Capital in the 21st Century, is that it demonstrates, in
excruciating detail (and this remains true despite some predictable petty
squabbling) that, in the case of at least one core equation, the numbers simply
don't add up. Capitalism does not contain an inherent tendency to civilise
itself. Left to its own devices, it can be expected to create rates of return
on investment so much higher than overall rates of economic growth that the
only possible result will be to transfer more and more wealth into the hands of
a hereditary elite of investors, to the comparative impoverishment of everybody
else.
In other words, what happened in western
Europe and North America between roughly 1917
and 1975 – when capitalism did indeed create high growth and lower inequality –
was something of a historical anomaly. There is a growing realisation among
economic historians that this was indeed the case. There are many theories as
to why. Adair Turner, former chairman of the Financial Services Authority,
suggests it was the particular nature of mid-century industrial technology that
allowed both high growth rates and a mass trade union movement. Piketty himself
points to the destruction of capital during the world wars, and the high rates
of taxation and regulation that war mobilisation allowed. Others have different
explanations.
No doubt many factors were involved, but
almost everyone seems to be ignoring the most obvious. The period when
capitalism seemed capable of providing broad and spreading prosperity was also,
precisely, the period when capitalists felt they were not the only game in
town: when they faced a global rival in the Soviet bloc, revolutionary
anti-capitalist movements from Uruguay
to China
Since the 1970s, as any significant
political threat has receded, things have gone back to their normal state: that
is, to savage inequalities, with a miserly 1% presiding over a social order marked
by increasing social, economic and even technological stagnation. It was
precisely the fact that people such as my Russian friend believed capitalism
would inevitably civilise itself that guaranteed it no longer had to do so.
Piketty, in contrast, begins his book by
denouncing "the lazy rhetoric of anti-capitalism". He has nothing
against capitalism itself – or even, for that matter, inequality. He just
wishes to provide a check on capitalism's tendency to create a useless class of
parasitical rentiers. As a result, he argues that the left should focus on
electing governments dedicated to creating international mechanisms to tax and
regulate concentrated wealth. Some of his suggestions – an 80% income tax! –
may seem radical, but we are still talking about a man who, having demonstrated
capitalism is a gigantic vacuum cleaner sucking wealth into the hands of a tiny
elite, insists that we do not simply unplug the machine, but try to build a
slightly smaller vacuum cleaner sucking in the opposite direction.
What's more, he doesn't seem to understand
that it doesn't matter how many books he sells, or summits he holds with
financial luminaries or members of the policy elite, the sheer fact that in 2014 a left-leaning French
intellectual can safely declare that he does not want to overthrow the
capitalist system but only to save it from itself is the reason such reforms
will never happen. The 1% are not about to expropriate themselves, even if
asked nicely. And they have spent the past 30 years creating a lock on media
and politics to ensure no one will do so through electoral means.
Since no one in their right mind would wish
to revive anything like the Soviet Union , we
are not going to see anything like the mid-century social democracy created to
combat it either. If we want an alternative to stagnation, impoverishment and
ecological devastation, we're just going to have to figure out a way to unplug
the machine and start again.
ALERTA !! Deceitful compromise clears the way for GMO crops in Europe Lawrence Woodward
 |
These fields of oilseed rape / canola near
Avebury,
|
Deceitful compromise clears
the way for GMO crops in Europe
31st May
2014 / http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2418065/deceitful_compromise_clears_the_way_for_gmo_crops_in_europe.html
An unholy alliance of pro- and anti-GMO countries have struck a deal that
will sweep away the obstacles to genetically engineered crops in the EU, writes
Lawrence Woodward.
An unholy alliance of pro- and anti-GMO
countries have struck a deal that will sweep away the obstacles to genetically
engineered crops in the EU.
By allowing - under limited circumstance -
individual member states to prohibit the growing of GMO crops on their
territory, the European Commission expects to boost GMO cropping in the EU
overall.
An indicative vote of Member
State representatives taken in a
closed meeting this week indicated near unanimous support for the proposal
which is being promoted by Greece
A formal vote will take place at a meeting
of Environment Ministers on the 12th June. If agreed - as seems likely - it
will then go to the European Parliament for approval.
The significance of this move is that it
breaks the political stalemate that has largely prevented GMO crops from being
grown in the EU.
The proposal is based on the deceit that
both pro- and anti-GMO countries can have want they want, and the unity of the
EU Single Market can remain intact.
An unholy alliance
Just how bizarre and ludicrous the deal is
can be seen by the member state responses;
Pro -GMO Britain hopes it will allow for
more rapid approval of GM crops in the EU: "This proposal should help
unblock the dysfunctional EU process for approving GM crops for
cultivation", said UK Environment Secretary Owen Paterson
"The viewpoint of the people in Europe differs greatly on this matter and this earns
respect", German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt said in a
statement.
He has a strange concept of respect. No-one
outside of the Brussels
Widespread criticism
Environmental campaigners say it gives too
much power to corporations.
The EU's Green Parties say it is a
"misleading proposal" which only"pretends to give Member States
more freedom to ban GMOs on their territory. With a very weak premise and legal
grounds, the proposal may in fact be instrumental allowing numerous new GMO crops
for cultivation in the EU."
The GM industry is also unhappy with the
deal. They say it could allow crops to be banned on "non-scientific
grounds" and undermines the Single Market.
"To renationalize a common policy,
based on non-objective grounds, is a negative precedent and contrary to the
spirit of the single market", said André Goig, Chair of EuropaBio, the
European Association for Bioindustries.
Trouble in the UK
In fact an earlier version of the proposal
put forward by the Danish Presidency several years ago was rejected by a number
of Member States on the grounds that it was legally incompatible with the
Single Market.
The UK
We wonder how closely UK
How the non-GMO cropping commitments of Wales and Scotland
Deceit and self deception
The deal rests on self deception and a
readiness to deceive the citizens and stakeholders of the EU.
The proposal contains a number of elements
which are questionable and open to challenge:
Before banning an approved GMO crop Member
States have to seek agreement from GMO companies to having their product
excluded from a specific territory
If the companies refuse Member States can
proceed with the ban but only on grounds that to do not go against the EU
approval and assessment of health and environmental risk
These Members State
The deception at the heart of the proposal
is that these grounds will be wide-ranging and legally defensible against a
challenge from industry, the WTO and a range of stakeholders.
It is almost certainly the case that if
they are wide-ranging enough to satisfy the EU's GMO sceptic citizens they will
not be restrictive enough to withstand a legal challenge and vice versa.
The heart of the matter
Much has been made by campaigners of the
requirement to seek approval for GMO companies.
But this is not the major and most critical
problem.
There are two fundamental problems which
this proposal fails to address:
The weaknesses in the EU's GMO assessment
and approval system and pro-GMO bias at the centre of the European Food safety
Agency (EFSA).
The failure to implement an EU wide and
rigorous co-existence and liability regime. To date the EU has only produced
non-legally binding recommendations for co-existence.
As it stands this deal is a messy and
unprincipled compromise which could lead to the kind of devastation of the EU
countryside and food system that genetic engineering and the unrestrained
activities of GMO companies has brought on the US
Lawrence Woodward is a campaigner and
educator on the use of GMOs in food and agriculture, and founder of GM
Education.
This article was originally published on GM
Education.
Sources
uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/28/us-eu-gmos-idUKKBN0E81AZ20140528
gmo.greens-efa.eu/gmo-free-eu-under-threat-12472.html
corporateeurope.org/food-and-agriculture/2014/05/biotech-lobbys-fingerprints-over-new-eu-proposal-allow-national-gmo
corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/draft_opt_out_23_may.pdf
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
