Agro-Export Model and Global Capitalism

Agro-Export Model and Global Capitalism

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

By Jorge Eduardo Rulli

Millions of Argentines suffer from hunger in the land that was once the cows and the crops; in Paraguay the army accompanies bulldozers, direct seeding machines, and sprayers and represses the peasants. In Brazil, the Lula government backs down from companies and enacts laws on Biotechnology.

The Agro-Export Model and the Role of Forage Producing Countries Configure the New Neocolonial Situation in Global Capitalism


Millions of Argentines suffer from hunger in the land that was once the cows and the crops; in Paraguay the army accompanies bulldozers, direct seeding machines, and sprayers and represses the peasants. In Brazil, the Lula government backs down from the companies and enacts laws on Biotechnology, accepting the factual situations established by Monsanto and the soybean farmers. In Uruguay, a few days after taking office, the leaders of the Broad Front show the world that perhaps they know a lot about municipal socialism but that they ignore everything regarding the environment and that they are not capable of understanding that the paper mills are a model of eucalyptus monoculture country that would be Uruguay's colonial destiny tax in the 21st century. In Bolivia, the peasant and indigenous struggle to recover natural resources and with it their own sovereignty grows, but in the Bolivian West, secessionism and racist and oligarchic proposals are also growing that only thanks to the mining effort and the sacrifice of the Aymara community of Alto , they failed in the attempt to place one of their own parliamentarians in place of President Mesa. Supporting this secessionist movement are the interests of the soybean farmers of the Province of Santa Cruz, whose growing exports today almost equate to Bolivian gas exports.

Years ago we stated from the GRR that: "The process of Globalization imposed on Argentina in the 90s a model of a country that produces transgenics and an exporter of forages. The consequences are now easy to see: vast territories emptied of their rural populations, hundreds of towns in a state of extinction, four hundred one thousand small producers ruined and many more indebted to the banks due to the financial imbalance that caused them to adopt new technological packages with great dependence on inputs, GMO seeds, Monsanto herbicides and very expensive direct seeding machinery ".

This fodder export model is perverse because its logic is that of the constant increase in these exports and this growth is at the expense of food production. Hunger is then, and beyond the hypocritical speeches of the political class, a direct and inevitable consequence of the agro-export model of commodities. In this way, both the success of the model and the harvest records obtained are immediately translated into greater poverty, destitution and hunger for the populations.

Violence against nature and people today expresses the naked power of transnational corporations throughout the continent, but that violence is especially exercised on devastated peasant lands, and these lands are far from the forums and consensus tables where it is intended debate about the future of our countries. Meanwhile, in these forums and in the meetings of the Soya concertation, the paradigms of Westernized Buddhism flourish as a new ideology to sustain Global Capitalism, in which yesterday's antagonisms coexist harmoniously today and where each one tends to transform into its opposite. As if it were a magical space, a space of transmutations, the consultation tables mix and devalue stories and behaviors in a Discepolian exchange from which one does not return….

Impacts of RR Soy in Argentina

The impacts of the soy model on ecosystems and populations are increasingly evident and unavoidable throughout the national territory. We are reaching 18 million hectares of transgenic monocultures and its effects have been devastating, both for the environment and biodiversity, as well as for rural life and culture. The agro-exporting fodder model has become an inexhaustible factory of poverty, a source of uprooting and a reason for migration to large cities, where in the new and growing conurbations the phenomena of poverty and social exclusion are multiplying. On the other hand, transgenic soybeans and corn have displaced many other crops that brought food to the table of Argentines, some of which must now be imported. The intense use of pesticides has shown the falsehood of the promises of the so-called biotechnology revolution in the 90s. The figures for the use of herbicides and new pesticides, miticides and fungicides are formidable and have caused massive contamination of water basins and groundwater tables. To make matters worse, this industrial agriculture has swept away the small horticultural productions, dairy farms and poultry farms that traditionally surrounded all Argentine cities. Now monocultures reach the first streets of towns and cities, and aerial fumigations mercilessly impact the populations of the suburbs, causing serious and growing statistics of cancers and terminal diseases.

As a consequence of the deep imbalances in the ecosystem, new pathogens such as Fusarium and rust have appeared and now infest soybean monocultures. This is a consequence of the fact that the community of soil microorganisms has undergone very strong modifications and fungi have multiplied to the detriment of bacterial colonies. Changes have also been recorded in weed communities with the appearance of unusual species in these systems and of several weeds that have developed tolerance to glyphosate. So far the response of soybean has been to operate on the effects of the model, increasing the applications and the amount of glyphosate per hectare, as well as other herbicides such as 2.4D, as well as various insecticides and fungicides for respond to the new threats produced by a profound imbalance of agro-ecosystems.

Another issue with strong impacts is the practice of chemical fallows in the winter that, after a first-class soybean and a second-class soybean, completes the monoculture cycle and the growing depletion of soils over vast areas. After the last harvest and before the first frosts, green mats of guacha soy germinate in these fields that are prepared for fallow. Currently, the method followed in these cases, given that because RR soy is resistant to glyphosate and perhaps to avoid lawsuits from the Monsanto company, is to combat it with a product whose trade name is Grammoxone and whose active component is the fearsome Paraquat. .

As a consequence of the new environmental situation created in the field by aerial spraying and contamination, we can verify a massive colonization of urban areas by wild birds, including scavengers, birds of prey and seagulls, as well as by field rodents. , all forced to abandon their natural habitats now turned into hostile places.

When global capitalism turns green

We said at the beginning of this year 2005 in a document of the GRR and on the occasion of organizing the Foz de Iguazú Counter-meeting: "One of the axes of these new public policies are the certification strategies conditioned by the interests of the markets and unscrupulously subjected to the implacable messages of corporate advertising. The discourses of social and environmental sustainability, which were part of the arsenal of complaints of Civil Society organizations, are captured by the Corporations that, now that they are invested in alleged social responsibilities. Certain NGOs, unfortunately, in these new scenarios have become mere entities that provide environmental services and also intend to show us how the mitigations or mitigations of impacts that are promised "

Aggression, violence and hegemonic discourse

The hegemonic discourse has extremely precise frameworks that it is not convenient to exceed if it is to be approved by the promoters of the "consensus". In that territory, good manners and respect for the rules that make the system functional are required of us. For example: the violence that prevails as repression throughout the length and breadth of the "soyization" model is emphatically denied in the territory of academic discourse and in the dialogue tables that are proposed to us. Even more paradoxical and surely ill-intentioned, the violence that is always a cultural fact is once again confused with the aggressiveness that is proper and characteristic of the spirit of man. Thus, when we are accused of being violent, as happened after the last WSF World Social Forum in Porto Alegre due to an incident that took place in our own workshop with Mauricio Galinkin and other exponents of the Roundtables for "Responsible Soy" who tried to arbitrarily modify the will of the participants. And so much in this situation that we were actually victims rather than victimizers, and given that we are not violent nor were we at that time, we believe that what was actually demanded of us is that we were not aggressive. That is, we are required to respect the agreed rules of presumed objectivity and moderation in discourse, that we accept the protocols of consensus that do not give possibilities for self-identification or allow sufficient and prior manifestation of the differences that affect us. they characterize, and that produce the sorcery of turning the enemy into an adversary, and us into the same thing that historically we fought until yesterday.

Emotionality and even the emphasis on the use of words and images, fall within what is forbidden to us by the hegemonic discourse and its rules of coexistence in consensus. In this way, it is necessary to allow oneself to flow, temper one's feelings and put distance from events, while recognizing in the other members of the table in which we are invited to participate, fraternal spirits with which it is necessary to achieve the much desired consensus. It does not matter whether they are peasants or agribusiness managers, the New Age vision incorporated by globalized capitalism as a new ideology imposes on us the rule of diluting the antinomies and exchanging the roles of the opposites. In turn, the co-option of the concept of sustainability and its incorporation into the consensus tables works as another tool to produce apparent truths and without major consequences.

In reality they try to impose a look on us in which there are no longer basic truths or foundations of ultimate truths. With that look without absolutes, the mirror of our possible and recovered identity is broken. Because to belong to a community or to rebuild our identity it is essential that we recognize the other different, call him enemy or whatever you want to call him. And that is why the effort of the transnationals so that we legitimize the imposed models and so that we sit at the consensus tables where the enemy dissipates ... The domination model is gigantic and yet fragile, ultimately it depends on our own acceptance, even more, it depends on whether we continue as we are now without knowing who we are and what we want. The construction of the model is based on generating common meanings to the subjectivity created by neoliberalism. Once that common sense has been built, the difficulty of deconstructing it and of constructing an alternative sense requires a titanic effort. That is why in our struggles we should always and above all try to generate new these new subjectivities.

Resistance grows although still without sufficient awareness and without the necessary strategy

However, beyond the speeches, violence is in force as never before in history and in addition to that: it has become globalized. But these situations are distant realities from the consensus tables where the sorceries of making opponents disappear are imposed. If aggressiveness and violence are not midwives of history, we would be ignoring our own national history made of successive social outbreaks that broke or overflowed each time the imposed models occurred, models that reproduced themselves trying to perpetuate themselves, and that opened from that spaces for social and institutional changes. Rodolfo Kusch when he talks about deep America always refers to an imaginary of magma and an unthinkable, horrible and smelly abyss that acts as the creative chaos of the unconscious and of the collective forces linked to the earth by the foundations of thought, by roots, by the tradition and culture. On this social magma and popular thought a slight layer of lava cools on which we exercise our precarious rationality and our certainties about the world of objects. Sometimes that layer is so strong that it makes us forget that an abyss underlies it and in the scenario in which we build our own universe we almost allow ourselves to be convinced about the non-existence of death and the existence of unlimited progress instead. Other times the light layer fractures and we fall into the depths, sometimes the magma explodes and it is necessary to reformulate ideas and also the social order. After each outburst, the correlations of forces change

If we deny violence as a factor for change, we would also be ignoring the popular rebellion of December 2001, which was not only an outbreak caused by the abuse of power and corruption, but also meant a growth and rebellion of the citizenship that it blew up the seams of the political model. Magma emerged once more above the layer that contained it. However, the governments that emerged from this social upheaval today preach the doctrines of consensus and play, converted and reconverted, to changes in roles in which the enemy does not exist. Thus, many of them since the harsh experiences of the 70s in which they proposed the biased doctrine of the worse the better, have been recycled to the current operators and political officials who endorse the established model. This model that seems untouchable for our political class, is the neoliberal model imposed by the dictatorship and by Menemism, in which the bulk of the production, marketing and export chains belong to the domain of large transnational companies. . That is the hard core, non-negotiable. To this model we now add intense social policies, poverty policies, client plans and aid for micro-enterprises all financed by new loans that are designed by the Banks and that continue to swell our External Debt. It is not a question of solving the issue of poverty and hunger, but of perpetuating it while containing it to avoid new outbreaks like those of 2001. Hundreds of cadres from the progressive left contribute their creativity to this task of mere recycling and makeup of the model and its consequences, and they do so with a pretended optimistic spirit of succeeding in modifying institutionalized iniquity.

Faced with the above, the fragmentation of the current struggles make up a dispersed archipelago and without strategies that the owners of the model do not find difficult to neutralize. For years we set out to raise awareness that a lot of energy and collective actions only strengthened a model that continued to be neoliberal but that was crossed with social policies. Perhaps it was not a good tactic, we ended up badly liking some piqueteros sectors, while a good part of the intellectuals who, without much shame, courted them publicly and who, lightly and without greater demands for analysis, even wanted to see them as the new revolutionary subjects, today they are officials of the current government. Of course, as GRR we have earned the respect of pointing out that above the claims about iniquity that move the common social leaders, we must be able to understand the role of the forage country that was imposed on us, the role of the rural model and the massive unemployment and the terrible uprooting that the model has produced, and also take into account the challenges that an absence of feelings of rurality implies for the construction of a better Society.

The search by certain intellectuals for the revolutionary subject is an old gesture of the left that often does not sufficiently address the complexities and growing perversions of the model. The areas of extreme poverty, marginalization and unemployment are also areas where globalized Capitalism explores new modes of manipulation and clientelism, where oligopolistic multimedia wreak havoc on the idea of ​​themselves of the excluded and where all the associated political weight of drug gangs, trigger-happy police and political leaders. It is at least risky to imagine that the new emancipatory subject could emerge from these areas, although this is not the discussion we are considering since it belongs to the field of possible research, but the lack of rigor and even scruples of a left and some intellectuals who at times seem to have lost all sense of reality.

The transnationals need us to legitimize their models, they also need us to internalize neocolonialism, to assume it as a new identity, the identity of the men of consensus in the new neocolonial order ...

When, in the midst of the transnational corporations' offensive, we accept, as some environmental organizations do, to sit down and discuss with them, in reality we assume that we can or have the capacity to negotiate, which implies the certainty of having enough power to do so. . Or perhaps not, and simply and without innocence, we accept and acknowledge the defeat of the struggles carried out in previous times ... In fact we will be accepting and resigning ourselves to the strategy of these companies in the hope of being able to negotiate some limits to their offensives, to limit the damage that we consider inevitable, etc. Now, let's make the effort to try to see it from the perspective not of the defeatists and negotiators, but from the perspective of the companies themselves and from the need to preserve their global marketing strategies. They themselves, through the mouth of the FSV Fundación Vida Silvestre, taken over by senior entrepreneurs from Pionner and from agribusinesses such as Lawrence, express it clearly in the call for the Forum for the Hundred Million Grains of Export at the end of 2003. They need the environmentalists and certain NGOs, they say, to avoid possible social crises or environmental collapses that could cause the increase of millions of new hectares of soybeans to current monocultures. That is why they advertise on their Web pages their successes in the call to which they managed to join such prestigious organizations as FARN, Greenpeace, FUNDAPAZ and Aves Argentinas, which are today their best interlocutors with Civil Society. Agribusiness companies should be proud of the similar successes of NGO co-optation that surely makes them excited about the possibility of breaking the will of our People to resist against the advances of the agro-export model.

The Hundred Million Forum, the Agribusiness Coordination Table with environmentalists

That Greenpeace sits down to negotiate with agribusiness is not a minor fact. It expresses decisive support for the Soybean Production Model and also supports the will of Agribusiness to deepen this model to the horizon of one hundred million tons of production grains, when currently and with a terrible sacrifice of the population and of the territory we have barely exceeded eighty million Tons. This collusion with companies is even more serious because Greenpeace does not stop its campaign in favor of forests but, on the contrary, increases it, perhaps to hide or distract from its support for the model. Meanwhile, it continues to arouse in this way wills and hopes in public opinion, hopes vilely betrayed from its very birth, since previous adherence to the Model transforms the struggle for the preservation of forests into a mere diversion destined only to continue confusing the expectations of the common, while continuing to raise, adding contributors and selling green merchandise for its own financing.

How "Certifiers" and "Organics" discovered the Responsible Soy model

With the Forum for the Hundred Million Tons of grains and the Round Table on Sustainable Soy at the Bourbon Hotel in Foz do Iguaçu convened by the WWF, Governor Maggi de Matogrosso and Unilever, during the month of March of this year 2005 , begins another stage in dependence on inputs and in the neocolonialism of the agro-export of forages model. It would now be a matter of consolidating the so-called MERCOSUR of Soy, and the stage refers to a deepening of the status of Republiqueta Sojera that was set for us in the 1990s. However, it is necessary to clarify that at this stage we are not only proposing to add new territories to the extensions assigned to monocultures or we are forced to plan the territory and the future of the Argentines carried out from the companies and in replacement of the absent State, but fundamentally we are faced with a complexity of the model and the incorporation of new actors and protagonists who strengthen and legitimize it.

The corporations, now in alliance with the large NGOs, try to advance in this way over the resistance of European consumers with new certified markets that express relative and superficial changes, but that manage to incorporate new producers into the model while managing to deceive the set on the one hand and maintain the scheme of domination on the other. The opening of a dialogue with NGOs, the achievement of adding many of these large European NGOs to the consensus tables and the incorporation of prestigious Consultants allow companies to open wide ranges of alternatives on basically correct diagnoses and that describe extremely critical situations and equally unbearable for the conscience of the European consumer. Among the options are offered, as does the WWF of the panda bear, soybean rotations and livestock to preserve soils and imagine illusory models of sustainability. This proposal forgets the concentration on land use in Argentina and the massive erection of fences, mill towers, drinking fountains and rural infrastructure, as well as the absence of population in the countryside, which allows a return to what was the traditional rotation in agrarian practices in Argentina. However, we believe that the proposal should be read from the crisis caused by environmental problems in Europe, problems resulting from the huge concentration of feedlots in the vicinity of the ports where the grain we export is landed and the search by companies with a higher rationality of production that allows them to avoid the current impacts, transferring fattening to the forage-producing countries themselves.

Green alternatives, agribusiness and agribusiness

Other alternatives are to speculate with growing certified markets that allow incentives in MERCOSUR for Organic Soybean crops and dream of the possibility of replacing the current massive use of transgenic feed with other certified organic ones. This strategic vector includes the Sustainable Soy Meeting of the Bourbon Hotel and the co-option both in Brazil and in Argentina and Bolivia of associations of small and medium-sized organic producers that, in this way, would ensure a growing market for their productions, thus legitimizing and from the needs of the small producer, to the global market. One of the greatest exponents of the Pastoral do Terra of Brazil expressed it clearly in a single image, Argentina, he told us, is in the agribusiness stage, while Brazil has long entered the "agronegozinhos" stage.

Well, it seems that this stage has also started in Argentina and many environmentalists and organic producers are excited to participate in the new policies and certified markets that corporations are opening. The transformation of agriculture into mere agro-business and the conversion of agricultural practices into farming have been fundamental axes of the transformation imposed on the rural sector in parallel with the commoditization of its productions, the growing dependence on inputs and now also, adaptation to niche markets with certifications, traceability and designations of origin.

Investments in renewable energy and urban solid waste management also find their place in the new business discourses. The approval of the Kyoto Protocol opens wide spaces for them to implement new businesses with the climate change that the same industry will cause. In this case, companies are offered to take advantage of one of the main instruments of the Protocol: clean development mechanisms. Under the CDM, developed countries commit to supporting the use of cleaner energies in developing countries, thereby initiating a gigantic carbon credit market governed by market mechanisms such as supply and demand for carbon credits. Emissions of greenhouse gases.

Let us also bear in mind that the proposal for Biodiesel as a fuel that is now being sent to us both from companies, from the Government and from many environmental NGOs, always implies an unsustainable and unproductive agriculture model, because it consumes more energy than produced and because it will require greater productivism and scale in those places where it is developed. In this way, it will be an unfair model of agriculture because it will concentrate wealth in a few hands and it will be anti-ecological because when it is proposed to scale production it will inevitably do so with abuse of chemical inputs and without respecting natural processes. On the other hand, it is hypocritical that a country like Argentina that has graciously and without a war delivered its oil to the Spanish company Repsol, now offers us Biodiesel as fuel and that, with more than six million hungry people, it continues to insist on the perversity of using agriculture for purposes other than producing food. It is because of all the above that we are not surprised that the interests of the transnational Monsanto are directly behind Biodiesel.

Finally, and with the aim of preserving a general vision of the planetary crisis, we would like to express that we cannot unlink the consequences of global warming from the use of biotechnology and the seeds from genetic engineering. Likewise, we cannot fail to link climate change and the use of transgenics with an agricultural model of which they are the maximum expression and the result. In other words, it is not only about campaigning against global warming and transgenics, but also about facing a model of agriculture without farmers, a model of exporting inputs that has emptied the rural population into the countryside and that for the sake of a Scale farming and factory farming abandoned the food security model and also the old production of high quality food.

Rediscovery of business ethics, makeup on an old face

CSR or corporate social responsibility, has as a concept approximately ten years of life, although lately this proposal has grown with renewed strength as an international or business forum is carried out in the world. Having at the beginning only motivated isolated philanthropic actions aimed at helping disadvantaged sectors, CSR soon became an effective means of adding value to one's own productions or services, as well as proposing new criteria for maximizing profits. . Adela Cortina says in her book "Business Ethics", "Ethics is profitable, among other things, because it reduces the company's external and internal coordination costs: it enables identification with the corporation and a more efficient motivation ". In recent years, many Business Administration Universities have incorporated ethics courses and established a merely instrumental discussion, that of placing ethics as another instrument at the service of a business achievement: that of maximizing profits. The verification that the bulk of consumers consider it positive that a company is committed to its immediate environment beyond its economic interests, opened the way to also experience that a large part of these consumers would be willing to pay a premium for socially responsible products . In this way, companies discover that the more social commitment they have, the more acceptance they will achieve from consumers. De allí a la cooptación de los discursos de la Sociedad Civil solo faltaba un paso, les empresas comienzan a pensar la RSE en tres grandes líneas estratégicas según los intereses del mercado de consumo: un área de políticas laborales, uno de políticas sociales y por último uno de políticas ambientales. No sólo descubren las empresas de este modo nuevos incentivos para el mercado a la vez que nuevos modos de ejercitar la competencia entre ellas, lo que es más importante es que suman a sus arsenales discursos y pensamientos sociales y ambientales, dejando atrás los tradicionales mensajes publicitarios, y enriqueciendo y acomplejando sus estrategias a la vez que asumiendo nuevas responsabilidades que fueran hasta ayer propias del Estado.

Sin embargo, George Soros, uno de los más grandes inversores del mercado financiero internacional, en su libro "La crisis del Capitalismo", reconoce que: "es necesario establecer una distinción entre el hacer las reglas y actuar según esas mismas reglas. La elaboración de las reglas envuelve dec isiones colectivas, o políticas. Actuar según las reglas envuelve dec isiones individuales o comportamientos de mercado" . La RSE no cuestiona la economía sino las estrategias y los procedimientos empresariales, y en verdad todo debate sobre la ética y la economía sólo cobraría sentido si somos capaces de recuperar la antigua concepción de la economía como economía política, en el sentido que la capacidad y la decisión de modificar las reglas sigue siendo un tema de la política, y asimismo, si somos capaces de reconocer con visión integral que el sistema económico no es más que un subsistema de la Sociedad Global.

La Certificación de nuestra dependencia a insumos se inscribe en el gran laboratorio de los monocultivos y del actual modelo de producción de forrajes

Para comprender cabalmente la actual etapa que se enmarca en la RSE, Responsabilidad Social Empresaria, debemos aclarar varios supuestos imprescindibles. Cuando las empresas refieren como en este caso a la agricultura orgánica, están hablando de una agricultura extensiva y de exportación que respeta absolutamente el modelo impuesto por las transnacionales de semillas mejoradas y de producción de agrotóxicos desde los finales de la segunda guerra mundial. Se trata de una agricultura orgánica fuertemente dependiente de insumos, insumos supuestamente no contaminantes, dependiente asimismo de semillas certificadas y de empresas controladoras de la calidad de esa producción orgánica. Debemos recordar también, que se trata de producciones que requieren operaciones especiales de traslado y de embarque, incluyendo puertos no contaminados, que hoy en la Argentina solamente la empresa Cargill tiene a disposición en la zona de Timbúes sobre el río Paraná. Asimismo, se nos ha manifestado ya que la urgencia de los mercados de productos orgánicos conduce a pensar en las zonas de reciente deforestación como las más apropiadas para esta agricultura dado que se trata de tierras vírgenes. En caso de intentarse hacer orgánico en otras tierras en las que ahora se siembran transgénicos, cualquier empresa certificadora exigiría aguardar dos o más años antes de expedir el sello verde correspondiente. En consecuencia, estamos frente a nuevas amenazas de agresión a nuestros cada vez más escasos bosques.

Desde AVINA y el Foro por los Cien Millones de toneladas de producción al Partido del maquillaje Verde

Si alguno supuso alguna vez que los Partidos Verdes serían gestados siempre por militantes radicalizados, la Argentina ha demostrado que, todo lo contrario también resulta perfectamente factible, al menos en el paradójico mundo de la republiqueta sojera… El respaldo a la iniciativa de constituir Partidos Verdes en la Argentina reúne a una cantidad de dirigentes con sorprendentes historias ambientales, desde relaciones con el Banco Mundial a patrocinios de AVINA, la Fundación Europea que encubre la penetración de las Transnacionales en el mundo de las ONG, pero en especial reúne a las expresiones locales de las grandes ONG ambientalistas internacionales. No parece ello un buen comienzo para construir alternativas liberadoras, en especial cuando algunos de esos dirigentes, tales como los ejecutivos de Greenpeace, participan pública y simultáneamente del Foro por los Cien Millones de toneladas de exportación.

Nuestra Cancillería continúa impulsando las políticas sucias de los Estados Unidos en el plano internacional

La Argentina se define en política internacional contra los subsidios que afectan nuestro acceso a los grandes mercados europeos. Pero, lo que no se considera, es que la política de subsidios en Europa se genera a partir del hambre y de una enorme necesidad de seguridad alimentaria en la postguerra y que esa propuesta fue y sigue siendo absolutamente legítima para los europeos. Sin embargo, es verdad que esas políticas justificadas en su origen, derivaron luego en el respaldo a la industria alimentaria y a muchos modos de favorecer la exportación y un dumping internacional de producciones alimentadas con nuestros propios forrajes y que luego en los mercados internacionales se nos vuelven en contra a precios subsidiados. De todos modos, nuestra política exterior sigue siendo la de estar irracionalmente contra todo subsidio y también contra toda propuesta de Seguridad Alimentaria, cualesquiera que ellas sean y en cualquier lugar del Planeta. Y esa política se mantiene aún al precio terrible de condenar un tercio de nuestra propia población al hambre, ya que la clase política parece ser tan irrazonablemente principista en este terreno y tan leal a las reglas de la OMC, que para ser consecuente con su discurso internacional se niega a establecer precios sostén para alimentos destinados a la mesa de los argentinos y que podrían aliviar el hambre de los indigentes y evitar una próxima generación de argentinos intelectualmente disminuidos.

El libre comercio y nuestros pobres hambrientos sacrificados ante el altar de la coherencia…

Los enfrentamientos entre países en los mercados globales no refieren así a una discusión sobre el libre comercio, con el cual todos parecen acordar, sino sobre dos modos de ponerlos en práctica, uno con ciertas trampas proteccionistas y el otro absolutamente estricto y que no reconoce excepciones ni guarda piedad por sus propios y pobres hambrientos. Paradójicamente esta última postura en la política internacional pertenece fundamentalmente a países periféricos como la Argentina. Sin embargo, en nuestro país el medio ambiente esta subsidiando el modelo de la Soja, permitiendo con absoluta impunidad que se deforesten millones de hectáreas de bosque nativo, que se degraden intensamente las zonas agrícolas tradicionales por los monocultivos y las nuevas tierras añadidas por agriculturización, que se contaminen las cuencas hidráulicas y que se degrade irremisiblemente la biodiversidad. Y todo esto sin contar las innumerables víctimas humanas y en especial de niños, consecuencia de las fumigaciones con glifosato, 2.4D y paratión que impactan sobre los habitantes del campo y en especial sobre los barrios periféricos de todas las ciudades argentinas. Nuestros subsidios a la exportación son: un territorio ambientalmente devastado por una parte, y por otra la pobreza, el hambre y la indigencia de las poblaciones.

Nos definimos como Grupo de Reflexión Rural frente a las políticas europeas

Nosotros como GRR pensamos que es legítimo que Europa se preocupe por su seguridad alimentaria y que el Estado proteja a su agricultura, pero consideramos inmoral que los subsidios sean para la exportación y deriven en efectos de dumping perjudiciales para el Tercer Mundo. También consideramos que Europa debería modificar la libre tasa de forrajes que los Estados Unidos establecieron y se reservaron a partir del Plan Marshall, libre tasa que posibilita hoy nuestra conversión en Republiqueta Sojera y consideramos que cada país debería hacer su propio forraje para de esa manera alcanzar producciones cárnicas equilibradas a las propias posibilidades. Nuestra propuesta se resume en que no necesitamos que nos ayuden, que nos basta con que nos saquen las manos de encima…

Reflexiones sobre la liberación nacional y la necesidad de recuperar un proyecto de país

La izquierda ha interpretado tradicionalmente a los procesos de Liberación Nacional como etapas propias de los países periféricos o subdesarrollados, en las que debían resolverse problemas pendientes tanto económicos como sociales, para poder plantearse luego la posibilidad del Socialismo. En esa visión se median nuestros desarrollos según el espejo europeo y se consideraba la necesidad de generar un sujeto revolucionario que solamente producían los procesos industriales, para poder proponerse luego la construcción del Socialismo y tal como se pensaba poéticamente tomar el cielo por asalto… En realidad no fue esa visión en cambio la que tuvieron todos aquellos que impulsaron los heroicos procesos de Liberación Nacional de la última mitad del siglo veinte en numerosos países coloniales y semicoloniales. Ellos imaginaron modos de luchar que les posibilitaba la recuperación plena de lo humano que les había sido expropiado por el colonizador. Fanon, uno de los más grandes teóricos de la violencia política dijo refiriendo al caso argelino: cuando un colonizado mata a un colono, muere un hombre pero otro nace, o sea que según Fanon la extrema pérdida de humanidad del colonizado requería la muerte del colonizador para poder recuperar en ese acto de exacerbada afirmación su propia humanidad… una condición de hombre que había extraviado en el penoso proceso de su sometimiento y en la pérdida de la Cultura y de la existencia de la Nación, que había significado para él, el terrible proceso de la colonización.

Recobrar la propia identidad, generar un Proyecto Nacional y pensar otro Modelo de País

Aquellas heroicas luchas revolucionarias del siglo anterior pueden equipararse a las tareas semejantes que se nos imponen en nuestro siglo XXI. La recuperación de lo humano por parte del colonizado es siempre, y tanto en Fanon como en otros autores, la recuperación de la propia identidad, y ello sigue siendo una tarea pendiente. Junto a la afirmación orgullosa de esa identidad necesaria, falta la proclamación del hecho Cultural de existir en la otredad aún no reconocida de ser diverso y único, y de estar arraigado tanto en un suelo dado, cuanto en una historia que nos provee un modo de saber quiénes somos como para saber también, de dónde venimos y por lo tanto poder determinar adónde queremos llegar… Son situaciones equiparables y que además continúan estando pendientes. Hoy en Democracia y distantes de aquellas épocas marcadas por los paradigmas de la vanguardia y de la lucha armada, nos planteamos la necesidad de reconocer en las nuevas luchas que se proponen desde la gente misma, medios para procurar pequeños aunque importantes objetivos de remediación de la conciencia, de la autoestima y en especial de la búsqueda de la identidad.

Nuestra clase política hace mucho tiempo que ha dejado de tener el oído pegado a los rumores de esa caldera que es la Argentina profunda. Como estamento político no dirigencial es una suma de fracasos personales, de vidas políticas recicladas, de identidades fracturadas, de interminables luchas intestinas y de miradas sin grandeza. Si la identidad se sustenta en la comprensión de la propia historia nacional, es ella, nuestra clase política, la menos indicada para exhibir hoy una impronta que, no podría asumir sin avergonzarse… Para peor, la corrupción inherente a su prolongada permanencia en el Poder a lo largo de más de veinte años de Democracia, ha creado una crisis de representación de difícil retorno.

En la realidad el modelo de representación, que no es democrático, pareciera haber capturado al modelo de la Democracia. El Estado o al menos lo que resta del Estado es botín de guerra del modelo de representación. Seguimos entonces esclavos de un proceso que sólo puede ser modificado mediante fuertes estallidos sociales.

Salir del desgarro colectivo de esta Argentina 2005 no será tarea fácil, quizá convenga reconocer que estamos apenas en etapas de preparación, en etapas de crecimiento y de conflicto. Que el tiempo de la coagulación de tanto esfuerzo aislado en un pensamiento nacional hegemónico aún no ha llegado, pero que no tardará…. Será tal vez, el resultado de hechos imprevisibles, fruto de otros cataclismos sociales como tantos que hemos vivido y sufrido en los últimos años. Será entonces y siempre, un punto de atracción y de maduración del pensamiento que permitirá recobrar los legados de la historia nacional en un hombre o acaso en un grupo; pero por encima de todo, será el fruto de las luchas y de los esfuerzos inabarcables del conjunto de los hijos de esta tierra.

* Jorge Eduardo Rulli
Miembro del GRR Grupo de Reflexión Rural
Junio de 2005

Video: PCPE 2006. Johan Norberg: In Defence of Global Capitalism. English (June 2022).