Storia50

Da Ortosociale.

Versione delle 09:19, 6 mar 2017

Commento n ° 444, 1 marzo 2017, "Resistere? Resistere! Come e Perché?"

Da tempo immemorabile, le persone che si sentono oppresse e/o ignorate dai potenti hanno resistito contro coloro che hanno autorità. Tale resistenza spesso ha cambiato le cose, ma solo qualche volta. Se si considera la causa dei resistenti l'essere virtuoso dipende dai propri valori e dalle proprie priorità.

Negli Stati Uniti, nel corso dell'ultimo mezzo secolo, è emersa una resistenza latente contro quello che veniva visto come oppressione da parte di "elite" che decretavano cambiamenti alle pratiche sociali offensivi a determinati gruppi religiosi e alle popolazioni rurali ignorate e alle persone le cui condizioni di vita erano in declino . In un primo momento, la resistenza ha preso la via del ritiro dal coinvolgimento sociale. Poi ha preso una forma più politica, finalmente prendendo il nome di Tea Party.

Il Tea Party ha cominciato ad avere alcuni successi elettorali. Ma era disperso e senza una strategia chiara. Donald Trump ha visto il problema e la sua opportunità. Egli si offrì come un leader unificante di questo "populismo" di destra catapultando il movimento in potere politico.

Ciò che Trump ha capito è che non vi era alcun conflitto tra essere il leader di un movimento contro il cosiddetto Establishment e cercare il potere nello stato attraverso il partito repubblicano. Al contrario, il solo modo per raggiungere i suoi malefici obiettivi era di combinare le due cose.

Il fatto che egli sia riuscito nel suo intento nella più forte potenza militare del mondo ha rincuorato i gruppi di tutto il mondo che la pensano come lui, che hanno proceduto a perseguire percorsi simili con un numero sempre crescente di aderenti.

Il successo di Trump è ancora oggi non compreso dalla maggioranza dei leader di entrambi i partiti tradizionali degli Stati Uniti, che cercano anzi i segni di quello che diventerà ciò che chiamano "presidenziale". Vale a dire, vogliono che egli abbandoni il suo ruolo di leader di un movimento e si limiti ad essere il presidente e leader di un partito politico.

Essi tentano di cogliere ogni piccolo segno che dimostri che farà questo. Quando ammorbidisce la sua retorica per un momento (come ha fatto il 28 febbraio nel suo discorso al Congresso), essi non capiscono che questa è precisamente la tattica ingannevole del leader di un movimento. Al contrario, si sentono incoraggiati o pieni di speranza. Ma lui non potrà mai rinunciare al suo ruolo di leader movimento, perché nel momento in cui lo facesse perderebbe il potere reale.

L'anno scorso, di fronte alla realtà del successo di Trump, è emerso negli Stati Uniti (e altrove) un contro-movimento che ha preso il nome di "Resistere" ("Resist" in inglese). Coloro che vi partecipano hanno capito che l'unica cosa che possa eventualmente contenere e alla fine sconfiggere il "Trumpismo" è un movimento sociale che si distingua per diversi valori e diverse priorità. Questo è il "perché" di Resistere. Ciò che è più difficile è il "come" di Resistere.

Il movimento "Resistere" è cresciuto con notevole rapidità a volte in modo così impressionante che la grande stampa ha iniziato a segnalare la sua esistenza. Questa è la ragione per cui Trump inveisce costantemente contro la stampa. La pubblicità nutre un movimento, ed egli sta facendo quello che può fare per schiacciare il contro-movimento.

Il problema di Resistere è che si trova ancora in una fase in cui le sue numerose attività sono disperse, senza una strategia chiara o almeno senza avere ancora adottato una strategia. Né vi è alcuna figura unificante che sia in grado a questo punto di fare quello che Trump ha fatto con il Tea Party.

Resistere è impegnata in molteplici azioni differenti. Essi hanno tenuto marce, sfidato i rappresentanti locali del Congresso nei loro incontri pubblici, creato santuari per le persone minacciate da espulsioni ordinate dalllo stato, interferito con mezzi di trasporto, pubblicato denunce, firmato petizioni, e creato collettività locali che si riuniscono per studiare e decidere ulteriori azioni locali. Resistere è stata in grado di trasformare molte persone normali in militanti, per la prima volta nella loro vita.

Resistere tuttavia ha alcuni pericoli davanti a sè. Sempre più partecipanti saranno arrestati e incarcerati. Essere un militante è faticoso e dopo un pò molte persone si stancano. Ed hanno bisogno di successi, piccoli o grandi, per mantenere i loro spiriti. Nessuno può garantire che Resistere non svanisca. Ci sono voluti decenni prima che Tea Party arrivasse a dove oggi si tova. Si può credere che a Resistere serva altrettanto tempo.

Resistere come movimento ha bisogno di tenere a mente il fatto che siamo nel mezzo di una transizione storico-strutturale del sistema-mondo capitalistico in cui abbiamo vissuto per circa 500 anni, una transizione verso uno dei due possibili sistemi successori - un sistema non-capitalista che conserva tutte le caratteristiche peggiori del capitalismo (gerarchia, sfruttamento, e la polarizzazione di ricchezza e potere) e il suo contrario, un sistema che è relativamente democratico ed egualitario. Io chiamo questa contrapposizione la lotta tra lo spirito di Davos [Nota del Traduttore: dove si riuniscono le elites dei paesi ricchi nel Forum Economico Mondiale o World Economic Forum] e lo spirito di Porto Alegre [Nota del Traduttore: dove si sono riuniti i rappresentanti mondiali di Resistere nei primi quattro Forum Sociale Mondiale o World Social Forum].

Viviamo nella caotica, confusa situazione di una transizione. Questo ha due implicazioni per la nostra strategia collettiva. Nel breve periodo (per esempio, fino a tre anni), dobbiamo ricordare che viviamo tutti nel breve periodo. Noi tutti vogliamo sopravvivere. Abbiamo tutti bisogno di cibo e riparo. Qualsiasi movimento che spera di svilupparsi deve aiutare la gente a sopravvivere sostenendo tutto ciò che riduce al minimo il dolore di coloro che soffrono.

Ma nel medio periodo (diciamo 20-40 anni), ridurre al minimo il dolore non cambia nulla. Abbiamo bisogno di concentrarsi sulla nostra lotta contro coloro che rappresentano lo spirito di Davos. Non vi è alcun compromesso. Non esiste una versione "riformata" del capitalismo che si possa costruire.

Dunque il "come" di Resistere è chiaro. Abbiamo bisogno collettivamente di vedere con maggiore chiarezza ciò che sta accadendo, di una scelta morale più decisiva, di strategie politiche più sagaci. Tutto questo non avviene in modo automatico. Dobbiamo costruire tale combinazione. Sappiamo che un altro mondo è possibile, sì, ma dobbiamo anche essere consapevoli che non è inevitabile.

di Immanuel Wallerstein

Commentary No. 444, March 1, 2017, "Resist? Resist! Why and How?"

From time immemorial, persons who feel oppressed and/or ignored by the powerful have resisted those in authority. Such resistance often changed things, but only sometimes. Whether one considers the cause of the resisters to be virtuous depends on one's values and one's priorities.

In the United States, over the past half-century, there emerged a latent resistance to what was seen as oppression by "elites" who enacted changes in social practices offensive to certain religious groups and ignored rural populations and persons whose standards of living were declining. At first, resistance took the path of withdrawal from social involvement. Then it took a more political form, finally taking on the name of Tea Party.

The Tea Party began to have some electoral successes. But it was dispersed and without a clear strategy. Donald Trump saw the problem and his opportunity. He offered himself as a unifying leader of this rightwing "populism" and catapulted the movement into political power.

What Trump understood is that there was no conflict between leading a movement against the so-called Establishment and seeking power in the state via the Republican Party. On the contrary, the only way he could achieve his maleficent objectives was to combine the two.

The fact that he succeeded in the world's strongest military power heartened like-minded groups all across the world, who proceeded to pursue similar paths with steadily increasing numbers of adherents.

Trump's success is still to this day not understood by the majority of leaders of both U.S. mainstream parties who search for signs that he will become what they call "presidential." That is to say, they want him to abandon his role as the leader of a movement and confine himself to being the president and leader of a political party.

They seize upon any small sign that he will do this. When he softens his rhetoric for a moment (as he did in his February 28 speech to Congress), they do not understood that this is precisely the deceptive tactic of a movement leader. Instead, they feel encouraged or hopeful. But he will never give up his role as movement leader because the moment that he did this he would lose real power.

In the past year, faced with the reality of Trump's success, a counter-movement has emerged in the United States (and elsewhere) that has taken on the name of Resist. The participants understood that the only thing that can possibly contain and eventually defeat Trumpism is a social movement that stands for different values and different priorities. This is the "why" of Resist. What is more difficult is the "how" of Resist.

The Resist movement has grown with remarkable rapidity into sometimes impressive enough that the mainstream press has begun to report its existence. This is the reason that Trump constantly inveighs against the press. Publicity nourishes a movement, and he is doing what he can do to crush the counter-movement.

The problem with Resist is that it is still at the stage where its many activities are dispersed and without a clear strategy or at least not a strategy they have yet adopted. Nor is there any unifying figure who is able at this point to do what Trump did with the Tea Party.

Resist has engaged in manifold different actions. They have held marches, challenged local congressional representatives in their public meetings, created sanctuaries for persons menaced with state-ordered expulsions, interfered with transport facilities, published denunciations, signed petitions, and created local collectivities that meet together both studying and deciding upon further local actions. Resist has been able to turn many ordinary persons into militants for the first time in their lives.

Resist however has a few dangers before it. More and more participants will be arrested and jailed. Being a militant is strenuous and after a while many people tire of it. And they need successes, little or big, to maintain their spirits. No one can guarantee that Resist will not fade away. It took the Tea Party decades before they got to where they are today. It may take Resist equally long.

What Resist as a movement needs to keep in mind is the fact that we are in the midst of a historic structural transition from the capitalist world-system in which we have lived for some 500 years to one of two successor systems - a non-capitalist system that preserves all of the worst features of capitalism (hierarchy, exploitation, and polarization) and its opposite, a system that is relatively democratic and egalitarian. I call this the struggle between the spirit of Davos and the spirit of Porto Alegre.

We are living in the chaotic, confusing situation of transition. This has two implications for our collective strategy. In the short run (say, up to three years), we must remember that we all live in the short run. We all wish to survive. We all need food and shelter. Any movement that hopes to flourish must help people survive by supporting anything that minimizes the pain of those who are suffering.

But in the middle run (say 20-40 years), minimizing the pain changes nothing. We need to concentrate on our struggle with those who represent the spirit of Davos. There is no compromise. There is no "reformed" version of capitalism that can be constructed.

So the "how" of Resist is clear. We need collectively more clarity about what is happening, more decisive moral choice, and more sagacious political strategies. This does not automatically come about. We have to construct the combination. We know that another world is possible, yes, but we must also be aware that it is not inevitable.

by Immanuel Wallerstein ​​

Commentary No. 444, March 1, 2017, "Resist? Resist! Why and How?"

From time immemorial, persons who feel oppressed and/or ignored by the powerful have resisted those in authority. Such resistance often changed things, but only sometimes. Whether one considers the cause of the resisters to be virtuous depends on one's values and one's priorities.

In the United States, over the past half-century, there emerged a latent resistance to what was seen as oppression by "elites" who enacted changes in social practices offensive to certain religious groups and ignored rural populations and persons whose standards of living were declining. At first, resistance took the path of withdrawal from social involvement. Then it took a more political form, finally taking on the name of Tea Party.

The Tea Party began to have some electoral successes. But it was dispersed and without a clear strategy. Donald Trump saw the problem and his opportunity. He offered himself as a unifying leader of this rightwing "populism" and catapulted the movement into political power.

What Trump understood is that there was no conflict between leading a movement against the so-called Establishment and seeking power in the state via the Republican Party. On the contrary, the only way he could achieve his maleficent objectives was to combine the two.

The fact that he succeeded in the world's strongest military power heartened like-minded groups all across the world, who proceeded to pursue similar paths with steadily increasing numbers of adherents.

Trump's success is still to this day not understood by the majority of leaders of both U.S. mainstream parties who search for signs that he will become what they call "presidential." That is to say, they want him to abandon his role as the leader of a movement and confine himself to being the president and leader of a political party.

They seize upon any small sign that he will do this. When he softens his rhetoric for a moment (as he did in his February 28 speech to Congress), they do not understood that this is precisely the deceptive tactic of a movement leader. Instead, they feel encouraged or hopeful. But he will never give up his role as movement leader because the moment that he did this he would lose real power.

In the past year, faced with the reality of Trump's success, a counter-movement has emerged in the United States (and elsewhere) that has taken on the name of Resist. The participants understood that the only thing that can possibly contain and eventually defeat Trumpism is a social movement that stands for different values and different priorities. This is the "why" of Resist. What is more difficult is the "how" of Resist.

The Resist movement has grown with remarkable rapidity into sometimes impressive enough that the mainstream press has begun to report its existence. This is the reason that Trump constantly inveighs against the press. Publicity nourishes a movement, and he is doing what he can do to crush the counter-movement.

The problem with Resist is that it is still at the stage where its many activities are dispersed and without a clear strategy or at least not a strategy they have yet adopted. Nor is there any unifying figure who is able at this point to do what Trump did with the Tea Party.

Resist has engaged in manifold different actions. They have held marches, challenged local congressional representatives in their public meetings, created sanctuaries for persons menaced with state-ordered expulsions, interfered with transport facilities, published denunciations, signed petitions, and created local collectivities that meet together both studying and deciding upon further local actions. Resist has been able to turn many ordinary persons into militants for the first time in their lives.

Resist however has a few dangers before it. More and more participants will be arrested and jailed. Being a militant is strenuous and after a while many people tire of it. And they need successes, little or big, to maintain their spirits. No one can guarantee that Resist will not fade away. It took the Tea Party decades before they got to where they are today. It may take Resist equally long.

What Resist as a movement needs to keep in mind is the fact that we are in the midst of a historic structural transition from the capitalist world-system in which we have lived for some 500 years to one of two successor systems - a non-capitalist system that preserves all of the worst features of capitalism (hierarchy, exploitation, and polarization) and its opposite, a system that is relatively democratic and egalitarian. I call this the struggle between the spirit of Davos and the spirit of Porto Alegre.

We are living in the chaotic, confusing situation of transition. This has two implications for our collective strategy. In the short run (say, up to three years), we must remember that we all live in the short run. We all wish to survive. We all need food and shelter. Any movement that hopes to flourish must help people survive by supporting anything that minimizes the pain of those who are suffering.

But in the middle run (say 20-40 years), minimizing the pain changes nothing. We need to concentrate on our struggle with those who represent the spirit of Davos. There is no compromise. There is no "reformed" version of capitalism that can be constructed.

So the "how" of Resist is clear. We need collectively more clarity about what is happening, more decisive moral choice, and more sagacious political strategies. This does not automatically come about. We have to construct the combination. We know that another world is possible, yes, but we must also be aware that it is not inevitable.

by Immanuel Wallerstein ​​