lunes, 30 de marzo de 2009

U.S. Lays Down Terms for Auto Bailout

Published: March 30, 2009

WASHINGTON — The White House on Sunday pushed out the chairman of General Motors and instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with the Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days as conditions for receiving another much-needed round of government aid.

The decision to ask G.M.’s chairman and chief executive, Rick Wagoner, to resign caught Detroit and Washington by surprise, and it underscored the Obama administration’s determination to keep a tight rein on the companies it is bailing out — a level of government involvement in business perhaps not seen since the Great Depression.

President Obama is scheduled to announce details of the auto package at the White House on Monday, but two senior officials, offering a preview on condition of anonymity, made clear that some form of bankruptcy — a quick, court-supervised restructuring, as they described it — could still be an option for one or both companies.

Mr. Obama’s auto industry task force, in a report released Sunday night assessing the viability of both companies and detailing the administration’s new plans for them, concluded that Chrysler could not survive as a stand-alone company.

The report said the company would get no more help from the government unless it can finalize a proposed alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat by April 30. It must also reduce its debt and health-care obligations.

If a deal is reached between Chrysler and Fiat, the administration says it would consider another loan of $6 billion to Chrysler.

G.M., on the other hand, has made considerable progress in developing new energy-efficient cars and could survive if it can cut costs sharply, the task force reported. The administration is giving G.M. 60 days to present a cost-cutting plan and will provide taxpayer assistance to keep it afloat during that time.

Along with Mr. Wagoner’s ouster, the task force said most of the company’s board would be replaced over the next few months. In a statement Monday, Mr. Wagoner said he had been urged to “step aside” by administration officials, “and so I have.”

His resignation is the latest example of the government taking a hands-on role in making major decisions at companies it is bailing out. The government has already pushed banks to make management changes and sharply reduce or eliminate their dividends, and it also is directing many of the decisions at the troubled insurance giant American International Group, which is nearly 80 percent owned by the government after its rescue.

In deciding to urge Mr. Wagoner to step down, the Obama administration seemed mindful of the public’s growing outrage over bailouts of private companies, as well as the bonuses paid to employees of A.I.G.

Mr. Obama is well aware that he cannot afford to give the appearance of using tax dollars to reward executives who have done a poor job, and he began signaling as early as last week that he would take a tough stance with the automakers.

In a question and answer session at the White House on Thursday, the president said there had been “a lot of mismanagement of the auto industry over the past several years,” and declared that more government help would be contingent on the companies’ “willingness to make some pretty drastic changes.”

The plan Mr. Obama is to announce on Monday will also include government backing of warranties for G.M. and Chrysler cars and trucks, to give consumers enough confidence to buy them, even if one or both are forced into bankruptcy.

In Detroit, the G.M. board said Monday in a statement that it “has recognized for some time that the company’s restructuring will likely cause a significant change in the stockholders of the company and create the need for new directors with additional skills and experience.”

“The board intends to work to nominate a slate of directors for the next annual meeting that will include a majority of new directors,” the board said.

Mr. Wagoner has presided over a steep drop in G.M.’s domestic market share, which has led to tens of billions of dollars in losses. His critics have said that management’s failure to move aggressively to address the company’s problems contributed to its dire financial situation.

“The bigger surprise is not that he resigned. That was going to happen sooner or later,” said Michael Useem, professor of management at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. “But the moment seems inexplicable.”

G.M. and Chrysler have almost exhausted the combined $17.4 billion in federal aid they have received since December. G.M. has asked for up to $16.6 billion more, and Chrysler has requested another $5 billion.

Bondholders are under pressure to convert two-thirds of the $27 billion owed them into G.M. stock, while the United Auto Workers union is being asked to substitute stock for 50 percent of their health care benefits for retirees. Both groups have resisted those changes.

Administration officials say they have enough money to offer the assistance they envision under plans already approved by Congress. Even so, Mr. Obama may face skepticism on Capitol Hill and from the public.

As part of the companies’ original agreement for the loans, both were required to submit restructuring plans. Mr. Wagoner’s removal underscores how much more G.M. needs to cut than was proposed in the plan the company submitted.

Administration officials stressed that the company needed a fresh approach and leadership changes; they said Steven Rattner, the former investment banker who co-chairs the auto task force, delivered the news to Mr. Wagoner.

As recently as March 18 he said in an interview that his discussions with the task force did not give him the impression that his job was at stake. “They so far haven’t commented on that,” he said then.

Frederick A. Henderson, G.M.’s president, will succeed Mr. Wagoner on an interim basis as chief executive; Kent Kresa, a board member, will assume the chairmanship. Members of the auto panel spoke with Mr. Henderson recently and came away with a favorable impression of him, people familiar with the panel’s discussions said.

Like Mr. Wagoner, Mr. Henderson is a graduate of the Harvard Business School and a lifer at G.M. He started in the finance division in 1984 and later spent nine years in executive positions in South America, Asia and Europe. The Detroit-born son of a G.M. sales manager, Mr. Henderson, 50, became chief financial officer in 2006 and was named president and chief operating officer a year ago.

Mr. Wagoner’s departure at G.M. marks an end to a corporate hierarchy that spanned generations. The last G.M. chairman to leave under duress was Robert C. Stempel, who was forced out in 1992 by outside directors who blamed him for losses.

Mr. Wagoner, 56, came to G.M. in 1977 and rose to become chief financial officer in 1992 when he was 38. He oversaw the company’s North American business for years before being named chairman in 2000.

G.M.’s share of its most important market, the United States, declined steadily under Mr. Wagoner. In 1994, when he took charge of North America, G.M. held 33.2 percent of the American car market. Last month, G.M.’s share was only 18.8 percent, according to statistics from Motorintelligence.com, which specializes in industry data. Auto sales in February were the worst for the industry since 1981.

G.M. collapsed last fall when new-vehicle sales in the United States plummeted to their lowest level in 25 years. G.M. lost more than $30 billion in 2008, and has been subsisting on government loans since the beginning of the year.

The administration briefed lawmakers on the plan Sunday night. Afterward, Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, Republican of Michigan, whose district is just outside Detroit, expressed frustration over the ousting of Mr. Wagoner and with administration officials for not being clearer about the potential job losses that lie ahead.

“Why would you ask Rick Wagoner to resign when you are giving G.M. 60 days to meet a new target, but you aren’t saying what the new goal is yet,” Mr. McCotter said in an interview.

White House questions viability of GM, Chrysler

PHILIP ELLIOTT | March 30, 2009 08:53 AM EST | AP

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is sending a blunt message to Detroit automakers: To survive _ and win more government help _ they must remake themselves top to bottom. Driving home the point, the White House ousted the General Motors chairman as it rejected GM and Chrysler's restructuring plans.

Obama is set to elaborate on that message Monday when he announces what his White House told reporters over the weekend: Neither GM nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive additional federal bailout money.

GM chairman Rick Wagoner became the most conspicuous casualty of that decision, forced out Sunday as the White House indicated Detroit must make management and other changes if it hopes to survive _ and that the Obama administration will have a hands-on role in those changes.

Michigan Gov. Governor Jennifer Granholm said Wagoner "clearly is a sacrificial lamb" who stepped aside "for the future of the company and for the future of jobs." She spoke on NBC's "Today" show Monday.

Obama said the companies must do more to receive additional financial aid from the government.

"We think we can have a successful U.S. auto industry. But it's got to be one that's realistically designed to weather this storm and to emerge _ at the other end _ much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is," Obama said on CBS' "Face the Nation" broadcast Sunday.

Frustrated administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of Obama's announcement, said Chrysler has been given a 30-day window to complete a proposed partnership with Italian automaker Fiat SpA. The government will offer up to $6 billion to the companies if they can negotiate a deal before time runs out. If a Chrysler-Fiat union cannot be completed, Washington plans to walk away, leaving Chrysler destined for a complete sell-off.

Shawn Morgan, a Chrysler spokeswoman, declined to comment ahead of Obama's announcement.



jueves, 19 de marzo de 2009

A Conversation with Mauricio Funes

By Roberto Lovato & Josue Rojas

March 17, 2009

Thenation.com

On March 15, the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) became the first leftist party to clinch a presidential election in the history of El Salvador. By 10 pm, it became clear to Salvadorans and to the world that the former guerrillas had ended more than 130 years of oligarchy and military rule over this Central American nation of 7 million. In the streets, thousands of red-shirted sympathizers chanted "¡Si Se Pudo!" (Yes, We Could), while they celebrated the victory of the FMLN's Mauricio Funes.
Funes captured 51 percent of the vote, to 49 percent cast for Rodrigo Avila of the Nationalist Republican Alliance party, which had been in power for twenty years.

Though Funes, a former journalist, is the best-known Salvadoran on his country's TV networks, he is little known outside the region. Thanks to a collaboration between The Nation and New America Media (NAM), reporters Roberto Lovato and Josue Rojas had the opportunity to interview El Salvador's next president on the night of his election. What follows is an excerpt from this interview with Funes, who addressed numerous issues: the meaning of his presidency, El Salvador's relationship with the United States, immigration and other domestic and foreign policy concerns.

Immigration has become one of the defining issues of the US-El Salvador relationship. How will your administration's approach to this issue differ from that of the outgoing Saca administration?

The fact that we're going to rebuild the democratic institutions--enforce the constitution and make of El Salvador a democratic state that respects the rule of law--is the best guarantee to the United States that we will significantly reduce the flows of out-migration.

Salvadorans who leave to go the United States do so because of the institutional abandonment, the lack of employment and dignified ways to make a living. This forces them to leave in search of new possibilities in the US. It's not the same for us to ask the US government to renew TPS [temporary legalization] without a Salvadoran effort to avoid further migration flows, as to do so from a position in which we have undertaken efforts to reduce the migration flows.

What's the first message you'd like to send to President Obama?

The message that I would like to send to President Obama is that I will not seek alliances or accords with other heads of state from the southern part of the continent who will jeopardize my relationship with the government of the United States.

Opinion polls in El Salvador indicate that large majorities of its citizens reject key policies that define, in many ways, the relationship between El Salvador and the United States, specifically CAFTA, dollarization and the Iraq war. What will your approach be to these issues?

We can't get mixed up in repealing CAFTA...nor can we reverse dollarization, because that would send a negative message to foreign investors, and then we'd be facing serious problems because we wouldn't have enough investment to stimulate the national economy.

What do you think the United States government should be concerned about with regard to El Salvador at this time?

To the degree that we do our part, which is to rebuild our productive capacity and to create a coherent social policy that improves the quality of life, there will be fewer reasons to leave for the US and we'll reduce migration flows. And that should be a concern for the US.

Where will the effects of the transition in power be felt most immediately?

We're going to change the way we make policy. And one of the most significant changes is that we will no longer have a government at the service of a privileged few. And we will no longer have a government that creates an economy of privileges for the privileged. Now, we need a government like the one envisioned by [Archbishop of El Salvador] Óscar Arnulfo Romero, who, in his prophetic message, said that the church should have a preferential option for the poor.

Paraphrasing Monseñor Romero, I would say that this government should have preferential option for the poor, for those who need a robust government to get ahead and to be able to compete in this world of disequilibrium under fair conditions.

This government implies a break from traditional policy-making.

Now, what we're going to do is put the government and the structure of the state at the service of the Salvadoran people--the totality of the Salvadoran people--but fundamentally, of that great majority who are oppressed and excluded from the country's social and economic development. [The people who for] not just the last twenty years but for last 200 years or more have not had the possibility of participating in the formation of public policies.

A government like the one I'm going to create will give them the protagonist's role, which, until now, they have not had.

miércoles, 18 de marzo de 2009

A.I.G. Chief Asks Bonus Recipients To Give Back Half

Published: March 18, 2009
NYTimes.com


WASHINGTON — As the lucrative bonuses paid to employees of the American International Group fueled fresh outrage at the White House and on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, the embattled chief executive of A.I.G. said that he had asked some recipients to give at least half the money back.

The chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, made the announcement during his testimony on Wednesday afternoon before a Congressional committee investigating the problems at the insurance giant.

“I have asked the employees of A.I.G. Financial Products to step up and do the right thing,” Mr. Liddy told lawmakers. “Specifically, I have asked those who received retention payments of $100,000 or more to return at least half of those payments.”

The A.I.G. chief said that some recipients had already offered to give up all of their bonuses, and he added later that he expected to get most of the money back.

Of the 418 employees who received bonuses, 298 got more than $100,000, according to the New York attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo. The highest bonus was $6.4 million, and 6 other employees received more than $4 million. Fifteen other people received bonuses of more than $2 million and 51 received $1 million to $2 million.

Before Mr. Liddy’s testimony, the A.I.G. affair prompted President Obama to declare that a culture of “excess greed” demonstrated in A.I.G.’s dealings should have no place in a new Wall Street.

“As we get out of this crisis, as we work toward getting ourselves out of this recession, I hope that Wall Street and the marketplace don’t think that we can return to business as usual,” the president said after meeting with his economic advisers.

Accordingly, Mr. Obama said, he will push for quick Congressional legislation to create a regulatory framework for entities like A.I.G., which is not a bank, similar to the powers that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has over banks.

“I’m angry,” the president said. “What I want us to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way.”

The president reiterated his faith in Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “No Treasury secretary since maybe Alexander Hamilton has faced such challenges,” he said. Mr. Obama has already called for Mr. Geithner to explore whatever legal means might be available to retrieve the bonuses. The president and his aides have also noted often that the near-collapse of A.I.G. and other aspects of the financial crisis began to manifest themselves before the start of the Obama administration.

The president did not call on Wednesday for the bonuses to be paid back, or taken back somehow. But there was strong sentiment on Capitol Hill over the $165 million in bonuses, and it was by no means clear that asking bonus recipients to give up half of their windfalls would appease the lawmakers. A.I.G. has received nearly $200 billion in federal bailout funds.

“We are the effective owners of this company,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, going on to suggest a lawsuit to recover the $165 million in bonuses. “I think it’s worth trying.”

By “we,” Mr. Frank made clear, he meant the American taxpayers, whose collective anger has been felt on Capitol Hill over the last several days. And no wonder, said Representative Gary L. Ackerman, a Democrat from Long Island. The typical taxpayer knows he is “the ultimate sucker” in the A.I.G. debacle, Mr. Ackerman said.

The lawmakers, having heard from their furious constituents, seemed unwilling to be mollified by the pledge from Mr. Liddy, who took the helm at A.I.G. last fall after it had begun imploding because of reckless investments, that the company’s 116,000 employees were united in wanting to work out of the morass, and work “shoulder to shoulder” with federal regulators.

Instead, the lawmakers were focused on the recipients of bonuses at the very unit that caused A.I.G. “to teeter on the brink of collapse,” as Representative Paul E. Kanjorski, the Pennsylvania Democrat who heads the capital markets subcommittee, put it.

“A million dollars is a sizable sum to the typical American family,” Mr. Kanjorski said, “and a million dollars is a lottery prize for anyone who has just lost a job.” He called on A.I.G.’s employees to join with the legions of Americans who “have made personal sacrifices to survive these difficult times.”

For the American people, said Representative Paul Hodes, Democrat of New Hampshire, the initials “A.I.G.” now stand for “arrogance, incompetence and greed.”

But Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey, the senior Republican on Mr. Kanjorski’s subcommittee, said he had a question for those who are unhappy with the way the A.I.G. story has unfolded: “What did you expect, and why weren’t you asking more questions before?” The big scandal is not the millions in bonuses but the billions going to try to save A.I.G. in the first place, he said. “And to what effect?”

It was clear even before the start of the hearing by the subcommittee that there was the potential for emotional outbursts from the audience, enough potential that Mr. Frank warned at the outset that there would be “no heckling,” and that he would have people arrested, if necessary. A few hours later, Mr. Kanjorski said a group of protesters in the audience had exhausted his patience. He director Capitol police officers to confiscated the protesters’ signs, which the police did without incident.

Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the leading Republican on the Financial Services Committee, urged his colleagues not to be distracted by what he said should be their true goal, “trying to recover as much taxpayers’ money as possible.”

Mr. Bachus said Congress should feel some responsibility for the mess, given an apparent failure to regulate adequately in recent years. “The American people are paying for it,” he said.

But for the moment, the focus was on the 418 so far unnamed recipients of the bonuses, paid out after A.I.G. was receiving $170 billion in public money after its near-collapse threatened not only the company but the entire financial system.

Mr. Frank threatened to issue subpoenas, if necessary, to make public the names of the bonus recipients.

“Morally reprehensible,” Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, called the bonuses. No one disagreed.

Nor did anyone disagree with Mr. Liddy when he said A.I.G. had made mistakes “on a scale few could have ever imagined possible.”

“The most critical of those mistakes was that the company strayed from its core competencies in the insurance business,” Mr. Liddy said in prepared text. “Those missteps have exacted a very high price, not only for A.I.G. but for America’s taxpayers, the federal government’s finances and the economy as a whole.”

“We are meeting today at a high point of public anger,” said Mr. Liddy, a former chief executive of Allstate who was installed as A.I.G.’s chief when the Federal Reserve announced its rescue package. “I share that anger. As a businessman of some 37 years, I have seen the good side of capitalism. Over the last few months, in reviewing how A.I.G. had been run in prior years, I have also seen evidence of its bad side.”

domingo, 15 de marzo de 2009

'Son escuelas de élite... para talentos'

Las universidades de la Ciudad de la Educación de Qatar se reconocen como de élite pero receptivas de talentos, se cual sea su posición económica

Sonia del Valle / Enviada
reforma.com


Doha, Qatar (15 marzo 2009).- Cursar una carrera en una de las universidades que conforman la Ciudad de la Educación en la capital de Qatar, tiene un costo de entre 30 mil a 50 mil dólares al año.

Sin embargo, a decir de Michael Vertigas, director de Relaciones Públicas de la Universidad de Weill Cornell, aquellos alumnos que no pueden pagar, tienen la posibilidad de adquirir una beca.

"El costo, es igual que en las universidades en Estados Unidos, depende mucho del programa, pero puede rondar entre los 30 mil y los 50 mil dólares al año.

"Las universidades asentadas aquí ponen su prestigio, sus maestros e investigadores y aquellos estudiantes que no pueden pagar, también tiene la opción de aplicar para un beca que otorga la Fundación Qatar", señala.

Con ese beneficio, el alumno que sea aceptado -previa presentación de exámenes y valoración del Comité de Admisiones, asentado en EU- podrá cursar sin problema sus estudios, y una vez terminados, "pagar" al Gobierno de Qatar por la inversión realizada trabajando en el País por 5 años.

O si lo prefiere, añade, la otra opción es cubrir el costo de los estudios en un plazo igual al que duró la carrera.

En caso de optar por la primera opción, señala, el empleo lo consigue la Fundación Qatar y la paga es competitiva.

"En este caso, no se tiene que pagar el costo de la educación, se paga por el servicio que se presta al trabajar en el País, la otra opción es pagar el costo de los estudios en un plazo igual y la beca se convierte en realidad en un préstamo", señala.

Quienes pueden solicitar su ingreso a las universidades de la Ciudad de la Educación son sólo alumnos de excelencia, con calificación de 10.

- "¿Son universidades de élite, no son para el pueblo?", le cuestiona un periodista al directivo de la Universidad de Weill Cornell.

- "Sí", responde Vertigas, "son de élite, pero para los talentos".

- "¿Cuántos latinoamericanos hay?", pregunta otro.

- "Ninguno", responde.

Por otra parte, Abdulla Bin Ali Al-Thani, vicepresidente de la Fundación Qatar, la cual desarrolla el proyecto de la Ciudad de la Educación desde 1995, señala que su País invierte en la gente hoy para vender conocimiento mañana.

"Estamos invirtiendo en la gente para crear nuevo conocimiento, lo vamos a aplicar, comercializar y exportar al mundo", explica.

Abdulla Bin, dijo que la apuesta de su País es transformar el petróleo y el gas en conocimiento.

"Estamos desarrollando el capital humano para hacer de la investigación y el conocimiento la palanca de desarrollo para el País.

"Vamos a crear nuevo conocimiento, lo vamos a aplicar, comercializar y exportar al mundo, y lo haremos en asociación con otras instituciones educativas que son líderes en sus áreas de trabajo para el desarrollo social y económico de la región".

Transforma Qatar petróleo en educación

reforma.com

Invierten renta petrolera en la formación de alta calidad de sus habitantes

Sonia del Valle / Enviada



Doha, Qatar (15 marzo 2009).- Desde hace 14 años, Qatar se fijó una meta: transformar el desarrollo económico del País, basado en los hidrocarburos, a una economía sustentada en el conocimiento.

Por ello, el Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani y la reina Sheika Mozah Bint Nasser Al Missned decidieron utilizar la renta petrolera para crear la Ciudad de la Educación, con el objetivo de ofrecer a su población una formación académica de alta calidad.

La decisión se vio aparejada con una inversión millonaria en el sector educativo, pues este País, con menos de 2 millones de habitantes, catalogado como el de mayor ingreso per cápita del mundo, destina 3.3 puntos porcentuales de su PIB para la educación, que es de 116.9 mil millones de dólares, y 2.

por ciento para investigación científica y tecnológica.

El proyecto, que arrancó en 1995 y fue trazado a 25 años, ha concretado ya seis complejos universitarios en Doha, capital de Qatar, en una superficie de 14 millones de metros cuadrados.

Se trata de los campus de Virginia Commonwealth University, para Arte y Diseño; Weill Cornell Medical College, de Medicina; Texas A&M University, para Ingeniería; Carnegie Mellon University, de Computación, Negocios e Informática; Georgetown School, de Servicio Exterior y Northwest University, para Periodismo y Comunicación.

Durante un recorrido, REFORMA pudo constatar la infraestructura educativa con tecnología de punta que propone un innovador concepto de aprendizaje colectivo entre maestros y alumnos.

En los salones, los alumnos están sentados en mesas alineadas en forma de un cuadrado, se trata de las clases "cara a cara".

Cada mesa cuenta con computadoras que suben y bajan de la mesa-escritorio con sólo activar un botón; las paredes del salón son pizarrones electrónicos de piso a techo o pizarrones blancos donde se puede escribir mientras se discute la lección entre estudiantes y maestros.

En otros salones, se toman clases vía teleconferencia con un académico ubicado en Estados Unidos, quien da una lección, como parte de uno de los seminarios que se imparten en esas universidades.

También están los salones laboratorio y de cómputo y la biblioteca sin muros.

Ésta última se conforma de mesas con 2 sillas y una computadora que se pueden encontrar en todos los pasillos de las instituciones, a través de la cual se despliegan las bibliotecas de al menos 50 universidades de todo el mundo, libros a los que los estudiantes y la facultad puede acceder con sólo conectar sus laptops, sus celulares, sus I-pod, o cualquier gadget.

En otros salones, los estudiantes se sientan en lofts, alineados como butacas de teatros, desde donde escuchan a un maestro dar su clase ayudado por un micrófono.

Ubicada al sur de la capital, la Ciudad de la Educación alberga también la Academia de Qatar, desde preescolar hasta bachillerato, y la Academia para el Liderazgo creada junto con las Fuerzas Armadas, que preparar a los líderes militares y políticos.

Además, se encuentra la Escuela para el Aprendizaje que ayuda a los estudiantes a compensar sus debilidades académicas y el Programa Academic Brigde que prepara a los alumnos para ingresar a la universidad.

Cuenta además con la Facultad de Estudios Islámicos, el Instituto de Investigación de Políticas Públicas Rand; el Centro de Desarrollo Cultural que albergará la Librería Heritage y el Museo de Arte Moderno Árabe.

La Ciudad concluirá su primera fase de expansión en 2012, una vez que abran sus puertas el Centro de Convenciones, el Parque de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica que cuenta con una inversión de 300 millones de dólares; el Jardín Botánico; el Centro de Investigación Médica y Hospital Sidra, el Centro de Recursos Educativos sobre los Equinos Árabes.

Este último contará con un museo, spa para caballos, veterinaria, colegio de equitación, cría de caballos y pista de carreras.

"Se trata de la primera gran inversión para la generación de conocimiento del futuro", explica Michael Vertigas, director de Relaciones Públicas de la Universidad de Weill Cornell, un inglés convencido de que en la Ciudad de la Educación se escribe la nueva página de la sociedad del conocimiento global.

Follow Brazil's Example


Reimagining Socialism

By Immanuel Wallerstein

This article appeared in the March 23, 2009 edition of The Nation.

March 4, 2009

Socialism's all the rage. "We Are All Socialists Now," Newsweek declares. As the right wing tells it, we're already living in the U.S.S.A. But what do self-identified socialists (and their progressive friends) have to say about the global economic crisis? In the March 4, 2009, issue, we published Barbara Ehrenreich and Bill Fletcher Jr.'s "Rising to the Occasion" as the opening essay in a forum on "Reimagining Socialism." TheNation.com will feature new replies to their essay over the coming weeks, fostering what we hope will be a spirited dialogue.

There seem to me to be two occasions, which require two plans for the world left, and in particular for the US left. The first occasion is in the short run. The world is in a deep depression, which will only get worse for at least the next one or two years. The immediate short run is what concerns most people who are facing joblessness, seriously lowered income and in many cases homelessness. If left movements have no plan for this short run, they cannot connect in any meaningful way with most people.

The second occasion is the structural crisis of capitalism as a world system, which is facing, in my opinion, its certain demise in the next twenty to forty years. This is the middle run. And if the left has no plan for this middle run, what replaces capitalism as a world system will be something worse, probably far worse, than the terrible system in which we have been living for the past five centuries.

The two occasions require different, but combined, tactics. What is our short-run situation? The United States has elected a centrist president, whose inclinations are somewhat left of center. The left, or most of it, voted for him for two reasons. The alternative was worse, indeed far worse. So we voted for the lesser evil. The second reason is that we thought Obama's election would open up space for left social movements.

The problem the left faces is nothing new. Such situations are standard fare. Roosevelt in 1933, Attlee in 1945, Mitterrand in 1981, Mandela in 1994, Lula in 2002 were all the Obamas of their place and time. And the list could be infinitely expanded. What does the left do when these figures "disappoint," as they all must do, since they are all centrists, even if left of center?

In my view, the only sensible attitude is that taken by the large, powerful and militant Landless Workers' Movement (MST) in Brazil. The MST supported Lula in 2002, and despite all he failed to do that he had promised, they supported his re-election in 2006. They did it in full cognizance of the limitations of his government, because the alternative was clearly worse. What they also did, however, was to maintain constant pressure on the government--meeting with it, denouncing it publicly when it deserved it and organizing on the ground against its failures.

The MST would be a good model for the US left, if we had anything comparable in terms of a strong social movement. We don't, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to patch one together as best we can and do as the MST does--press Obama openly, publicly and hard--all the time, and of course cheering him on when he does the right thing. What we want from Obama is not social transformation. He neither wishes to, nor is able to, offer us that. We want from him measures that will minimize the pain and suffering of most people right now. That he can do, and that is where pressure on him may make a difference.

The middle run is quite different. And here Obama is irrelevant, as are all the other left-of-center governments. What is going on is the disintegration of capitalism as a world system, not because it can't guarantee welfare for the vast majority (it never could do that) but because it can no longer ensure that capitalists will have the endless accumulation of capital that is their raison d'être. We have arrived at a moment in which neither farsighted capitalists nor their opponents (us) are trying to preserve the system. We are both trying to establish a new system, but of course we have very different, indeed radically opposed, ideas about the nature of such a system.

Because the system has moved very far from equilibrium, it has become chaotic. We are seeing wild fluctuations in all the usual economic indicators--the prices of commodities, the relative value of currencies, the real levels of taxation, the quantity of items produced and traded. Since no one really knows, practically from day to day, where these indicators will shift, no one can sensibly plan anything.

In such a situation, no one is sure what measures will be best, whatever their politics. This practical intellectual confusion lends itself to frantic demagoguery of all kinds. The system is bifurcating, which means that in twenty to forty years there will be some new system, which will create order out of chaos. But we don't know what that system will be.

What can we do? First of all, we must be clear what the battle is about. It is the battle between the spirit of Davos (for a new system that is not capitalism but is nonetheless hierarchical, exploitative and polarizing) and the spirit of Porto Alegre (a new system that is relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian). No lesser evil here. It's one or the other.

What must the left do? Promote intellectual clarity about the fundamental choice. Then organize at a thousand levels and in a thousand ways to push things in the right direction. The primary thing to do is to encourage the decommodification of as much as we can decommodify. The second is to experiment with all kinds of new structures that make better sense in terms of global justice and ecological sanity. And the third thing we must do is to encourage sober optimism. Victory is far from certain. But it is possible.

So, to resume: work in the short run to minimize pain, and in the middle run to ensure that the new system that will emerge will be a better one and not a worse one. But do the latter without triumphalism, and knowing that the struggle will be tremendously difficult.