domingo, 21 de abril de 2013
THE PENTAGON TORTURERS
terça-feira, 27 de novembro de 2012
AN IMPORTANT ICELANDIC REFERENDUM AND THE MEDIA REMAINS SILENT
The citizens of Iceland voted in a referendum, on Saturday (20th), with about 70% of the voters. The basic text of its new constitution, drafted by 25 delegates, almost all ordinary men, chosen by direct vote of the people, included the nationalization of its natural resources. Iceland is one of those enigmas of history. Situated in an area warmed by the Gulf Stream, which winds in the North Atlantic, the island of 103,000 km2, is inhabited only along its coast.
The interior of high hills, with 200 active volcanoes, is entirely hostile - but this is one of the oldest democracies in the world, with its parliament (Althingi) running for over a thousand years. Even under the sovereignty of Norway and Denmark, until the late 19th century, Icelanders have always kept comfortable autonomy in their internal affairs.
In 2003, under pressure from neoliberals, Iceland privatized its banking system, up to that time state-owned. As they pleased major U.S. and British banks, already operating in the derivative market, in the spiral of subprimes, Reykjavik turned into a great international financial center and one of the biggest victims of neoliberalism. With only 320.000 inhabitants, the island became a comfortable fiscal paradise for the great banks.
Institutions like Lehman Brothers used the country's international credit in order to attract European investments, particularly British. That money was applied to the financial casino, commanded by U.S. banks. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers exposed that Iceland therefore has taken debt exceeding ten times its gross domestic product. The government was forced to re-nationalize its three banks, whose executives were prosecuted and sentenced to prison.
In order to tackle the huge debt, the government decided that each of the Icelanders - of all ages - would pay 130 euros monthly for 15 years. The people demanded a referendum and, with 93% of the vote, decided not to pay that debt as it was the responsibility of the international financial system from Wall Street and the City of London.
The country's external debt, built by the irresponsibility of banks associated with the largest global financial institutions, led the nation to insolvency and Icelanders to despair. The crisis has become political, with the decision of its people to change everything. A popular assembly spontaneously gathered and decided to elect a constituent body of 25 citizens, who didn't have any partisan activity in order to draft the Constitutional Charter of the country.
To apply to the legislative body, the selecttion of 30 people was enough. There were 500 applicants. The chosen heard the adult population, who spoke via internet, with suggestions for the text. The government took over the initiative and formalized the committee to submit the document to the referendum held yesterday.
Upon being approved yesterday by more than two-thirds of the population, the constitution must be ratified by Parliament.
While Iceland is a small nation, away from Europe and America, and with an economy reliant on foreign markets (exports of fish, mainly cod), their example may serve other people, overwhelmed by the irrationality of the financial dictatorship.
During these few years, in which the Icelanders resisted against the harassment of large international banks, the international media have been conveniently silent about what is happening in Reykjavik. It is an eloquent sign that Icelanders may be paving the way to a peaceful world revolution of the people.
Translated from the Portuguese version by:
this text was also published in the following sites:
sexta-feira, 15 de junho de 2012
THE NEOCOLONIAL STRATEGIES AND THE PACIFIC ALLIANCE
With that in mind, Spanish diplomacy and "think-tanks" even rescued an old expression, "Ibero-America", a mythical continent extending from the Pyrenees to Tierra del Fuego, embodying Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Central America, and all the countries of South America, until the edges of the Strait of Magellan.
Suddenly transformed into "nouveau riche" - forgetting that their quality of life, as well as the relative power of their companies resulted from billions of euros transferred as financial help by the European Union, in particular by France and Germany, and cheap money, at very low interest rates, lent by the European Central Bank - the Spanish royal court, bankers, neoliberal politicians and opportunist adventurers set themselves, with the enthusiasm of a Cortez, to the looting of Latin America.
The "strangulation" of most of our countries by inflation - as well as questionable foreign debts - and the absence of equal conditions of access to cheap and widespread credit to our business communities resulted in the largest process of denationalization in history.
A process that was tragic for private initiative, with the handover of centenarian companies and their technology to multinationals, as happened to the Metal Leve, of our sadly missed José Mindlin, for example. But it was much worse, dreadful indeed, in the public sector, in which new Iberian crusaders, like Emilio Botin, of Santander, Antonio Brufau, of Repsol, Cesar Alierta, of Telefónica, and even opportunists like Gregorio Marin Preciado - some of them presently being investigated for tax evasion and money laundering - counted on the abject and conditioned complicity of collaborators (always the same collaborators...) to the disassembly, the quartering and the denationalization of the national patrimony and strategic assets.
In Brazil, it is currently a proven fact that the excited followers of Washington Consensus spent more money (fattening the chickens to deliver them to the foxes, while they "prepared" the state companies to privatization) than they received, for the National Treasure, after the privatizations.
It was alleged by then that privatizations would abate the public debt, but the debt-to-GDP ratio practically doubled in eight years. It was said that the taxes would be reduced for the consumers, but, in telephone service or broadband internet, for example, we pay, according to international organizations, the most expansive bills of the world. Not to mention, first of all, the lousy quality of the services - that led to the prohibition of Telefónica selling broadband services in São Paulo for some time.
Those who wish to confirm the extravagant and pernicious content of the General Law of Telecommunications - approved during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso and intended to penalize the consumers - may look for information in the National Agency of Telecommunications, or, even better, try to solve a problem - by telephone - with his telephone company. The law even states that public telephones are "not obliged" to make interurban calls. And it is not even necessary to talk about the so called "universal access" to telephone and internet services. Those who live in the countryside know about that quite well.
Another argument used a lot by that time was the existence of "featherbedding" in state companies. In this aspect, we just have to remember that Antonio Carlos Valente, president of Vivo in Brazil, was one of the men that led the telecommunications privatization in Brazil since the beginning, and one of the first advisers of the National Agency of Telecommunications - the Federal department responsible for the audit of his current bosses' activities. And that the son-in-law of the King of Spain, whose greatest skill as a telecommunication expert is being an excellent polo player, is a member of the Council of Telefónica do Brasil, receiving dozens of millions of euros per year for doing nothing.
The private orgy with state companies was so big, and the profits so huge, that Francisco Luzón, a "senior official" of Santander, who led the buyout of the Bank of the State of São Paulo, retired some months ago, taking home, as a reward for his work in Latin America, a gratification of 70 million euros, or 175 million reais.
In telecommunications, oil, financial services, the Spanish strategy is investing the minimum amount possible and taking to Europe the largest share of profits they can. If investments are necessary, they ask others to do it, as did Santander Brasil, when they raised money in its own market for a takeover; and Repsol do Brasil, that was forced to sell part of its capital to China's SINOPEC.
Needing financial resources to fulfil obligations, like investments in infrastructure, for example? Easy. Borrow money from Brazilian Development Bank, with subsidised interest rates, like Vivo did last year, receiving three billion reais from Brazilian taxpayers. Of course, that didn't stop the company's remittance of profits of billions of euros to its headquarters in Madrid.
Like the Italians say, "it thundered so much, that it's now raining". Argentina grew tired of such effrontery of Spanish companies. Tranformed - thanks to privatization - from an oil producing nation into an oil importer, it decided to take over the control of YPF, Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales, denationalized during the neoliberal government of Carlos Saul Menem.
Cristina Kirchner's government intervened in the company last week, dismissing the Spanish senior officials of Repsol and replacing the security of the building. The "nice guys", like vultures, "dried off" the company's wells that were functional when they acquired YPF, sending profits abroad, without risking one cent of a peso to find new oil fields or drilling new wells.
With a country-risk scoring 500 points, the Spanish people is being harassed by the disastrous situation created by the incompetence of their ruiling elite. Even so, the right-wing was elected once again, using xenophobia to blame not the bankers, but immigrants. They will now go further against the citizens, withdrawing and softening workers' rights to healthcare, education and job security.
The government of prime minister Mariano Rajoy - like the mouse that roared - threatened to act "with conviction" and affirmed that Cristina Kirchner's decision will bring "severe consequences" to Argentina.
Like Italy did in the Battisti affair, Spain asked the help of the European Economic Community, which - except for a few protocolar statements - just washed its hands and said that there are no legal treaties that would allow the organization to inferfere in the subject, that should be seen as a bilateral issue.
Western media exercised - with some of its local representatives - its right of screaming and kicking. During her visit to Brazil, Hillary Clinton said that Argentina must "justify and assume the responsibilities of its decision" and, being coherent with the US rigmarole in the defense of the free market - so much divulged and so little practiced - remembered that free market is the best model of competition and access to commodities and energy sector.
Spain, however, felt disappointed. The Spanish Minister of Foreign Relations said that he was expecting more of the north-american ally, to whom the country has been so subservient in recent years, taking part, among other issues, in military operations in Libya and Afghanistan. And recognized the fact that the US has, nowadays, "its own interests in Argentina".
With an unemployment rate of 23% of the economically active population, a high public deficit that the European Union recognizes as impossible to decrease before 2017, an external debt of 165% of the GDP, 80% of internal liquid debt, and only 30 billion dollars in international reserves, the Spanish government is using the Repsol affair to distract public opinion from the country's reality.
The most relevant newspapers have presented, in editorials and news stories covering the issue, the expropriation of the oil company as an insult, an aggression and a betrayal to Spain. Just like happened in the case of the adoption of reciprocity measures by the Brazilian government to the entry of Spanish tourists in Brazil, now a large number of internaut users claim that Spanish companies should fire all the Argentine employees living in Spain. Some ask the government to promote mass deportation of Argentine immigrants living in the country, forgetting of the Argentine's solidarity to Spain in times of need and the fact that there are currently more Spanish living in Argentina than Argentines living in Cervantes' fatherland.
But there is also a minority that asks, ironicallly, how many shareholders are among those defending Repsol. They remember that the company, since a longe time, does not belong to the Spanish people; that its capital is composed by Chinese and American funds, as well as "investors" that became suspiciously rich in the "golden years" - and who are also involved in the building of the crisis that the country now faces.
The visible indignation of the Spanish government is not directed to the defense of the interests of the nation or its people, but of private "investors". The Kingdom of Spain certainly lacks moral authority to question the Argentine decision. The Spanish Constitution determines that:
"All the wealth of the country in its distinct types and juridical nature is subordinated to the public interest. The public initiative will be legally recognized in the economic activity. Under the law, resources and essential services may be granted to the public sector, especially in case of monopoly, as well as intervention in private companies when required by public interest."
With a decreasing influence in Latin America, if it really had any in the last decades, Spain searches for allies where it can. The president of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, expressed his concern with "protectionism and nationalizations" in Cartagena and in the "World Forum on Latin America", in Puerto Vallarta, where he received the Spanish prime minister. With "protectionism", Calderón sent a message to Brazil, that set import quotas to Mexican vehicles, after the overvaluation of 88% of the Brazilian real in comparison to the Mexican peso in a period of ten years, and also to other countries that send auto parts to mount them in Mexico and then export them to Brazil without paying import taxes. The warning about "nationalization" was directed to Argentina. Mexican Pemex possesses 10% of Repsol. Mexico and Chile are arguably the only Latin American countries that had relative benefits with the privatizations wave of the 1990s, that gave rise to controversial figures such as Carlos Slim - owner of America Móvil and the richest man in the world -
Mexico and Spain are more dependent on international trade than Brazil, whose trading influx barely reaches 13% of the GDP. But the fact that Mexico sends the huge majority of its exports to the United States and that its industrial policy is based on "maquillaje" and cheap labor, makes it difficult for Mexico do adpot an independent and sovereign trading policy. The same happens to Spain, that has long given away important aspects of its sovereignty, submitting its economic decisions to the rules of the European Union.
With the failure of the "Ibero-America" myth - the last "Ibero-American" summit held last year in Asunción, Paraguay, was noted for the absence of 16 of the 22 presidents invited, who blew the King Juan Carlos and Zapatero off - Spain now is betting, together with the United States, in the "Pacific Alliance".
The plan is using Mexico to gather governments known for having a stronger neoliberal profile, such as Colombia and Chile, together with Peru and watchers like Panama and Costa Rica, to counterpoint the process of continental integration led by Brazil in organizations such as Mercosur, Unsaur and the South American Defense Council.
This last neocolonial strategy also seems to be condemned to failure. The Peruvian president, Omanta Humalla, hasn't shown any enthusiasm for the initiative, launched by his predecessor, Alan Garcia, and already stated that he doesn't plan to take part of the group's first summit, to be held in June, in Santiago do Chile.
quinta-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2011
A WITHDRAWAL WHITOUT GLORY OR HONOR
Again, the United States concludes a war without winning it, while failing to impose its will on those who were attacked. U.S. troops are not leaving Iraq as they left Saigon on April 30, 1975, driven out by troops of Hanoi and the Vietcong. This time, they first destroyed and devastated Iraq, during a decade of constant bombings.
The despotism of Saddam didn't bother the United States before, when it coincided with the interests of Washington. So much so, that the Americans pushed for a war against Iran, and offered military and diplomatic support. However, their goal was to weaken the two countries.
At the time - making a basic political mistake - Saddam intended to restore the historical borders of Iraq, to invade Kuwait. Washington, with the first Bush, found this to be a pretext for the aggression and air attack on Baghdad, creating the so-called exclusion zone, in which aerial bombardment was indiscriminate. An economic blockade was imposed.
There were tens of thousands of deaths during the ten years of air strikes leading up to the invasion. Among the survivors of the attack, there were thousands of children afflicted with leukemia due to radiation from depleted uranium ammunition.
Thus, while invading the country on the ground, the Americans found a weak army, devastated territory and a government on the defensive diplomatically. The pretext, the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was exposed and destroyed by the facts.
Yesterday, President Obama said that Iraq is today "independent, free and sovereign, much better than it was with Saddam." Saddam, as international observers know, was much less obscurantist than the princes of Saudi Arabia.
His people lived relatively well, their women were not treated with disrespect and were able to attend the university. Some occupied important positions in government, academia and research laboratories. There was religious tolerance, despite the divergence between the Sunnis and secular Shiites, he was able to manage to secure internal peace.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, was a Chaldean Catholic in a country of Islamic culture, yes, but perhaps the most open of all of them to other cultures and customs. The country was in full economic development, with major infrastructure works, and maintained excellent relations with Brazil, through the oil-for technology and engineering services, when the bombing began.
After that, in the last nine years, the U.S. occupation killed more than 100,000 civilians, 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and 4,800 invaders, of which 4,500 were Yankees. Thousands and thousands of Iraqi citizens were injured, as well as invading soldiers, most of them mutilated. The cities were devastated - but the oil wells were divided between the companies of the countries that participated in the invading military coalition.
Today no one knows the real reasons for the war, both against Iraq, Afghanistan and the need for that supply of oil and gas of the Middle East and Caspian Valley to the United States and Western Europe. Hence, the preemptive war without limits as the second Bush stated. He said he was called by God in order to go to Iraq to kill Saddam Hussein.
Not only are there dead from aggression against Iraq. The Americans leave the country without sufficient electric energy, no drinking water, with 15% unemployment and 85% of those who work are working in government service.
The whole history of the United States - along with the great merits of its people - was built on the desire for conquest and death. Since the occupation of New England, not only the Indians knew this expansionist fury: in the war against Mexico, the country lost half of its native territory, which corresponds to almost one-third of the current North American space in the continent.
One of the disgraces of the American victory was the breaking of the Missouri Compromise, with the expansion of slavery to new territories. It would be - a little over ten years later - one of the major causes of internal conflict between North and South, the war of secession. Lincoln, who fought it, had been in 1847, one of the few to oppose the conflict with Mexico.
Since then, U.S. imperialist lust has known no bounds. Their ruling elites and their governments, except for a few lucid men, moved convinced that it was up to Washington to dominate the world. They still move in this fanatical determination.
Now, they are leaving Iraq and also announce that they will leave Afghanistan next year. But at the same time, within the Bush doctrine of war without end, they are prepared for a new genocidal aggression against Iran
The United States never experienced the presence of foreign invaders. Their war of independence was against British troops, who were not invading, but yes occupants of the metropolis in the colony.
The few incursions on the Mexican border, so fragile, do not count. But there is a growing force, that they cannot defeat: that of the very American people, tired of supporting the internal imperialism of their bankers and of their few billionaire families who feed on inequality.
The people, more than anything, feel exhausted from the blood tribute that each generation is obligated to offer. There is no glory in wars against defenseless people, and almost always peaceful, in the name of this or that, but always caused by the interests of the looters and plunderers of the wealth of others.
The situation took new direction, from the year 1980, as noted in an article published yesterday by El Pais, the Catalan philosopher and biologist Federico Mayor Zaragoza, former education minister in his country. For 12 years, he was the Director-General of UNESCO. The alliance of interests between Reagan and Margaret Thatcher meant the capitulation of the state in the market, and began the era of real terror, with 4 billion dollars spent each day for armaments and other military expenditures, while every day 60,000 people died of hunger in the world.
Mayor recalls the leading elites of the new creed, which Furtado called "market fundamentalism": the sad erosion of the UN and its replacement by plutocratic groups, such as the Group of 7, then 8 and now under the pressure of the emerging ones, of the 20. And in the homeland of the new faith in "market reasons," the United States, there are now 20 million unemployed, 40 million new poor and 50 million people without any health insurance.
Europe, besieged and bewildered with the failure of its political institutions, is trapped in the euro, which has no way to compete with the dollar or the yuan, the yuan and the dollar because they are issued in accordance with the needs of the United States and China. It managed to escape to England, which maintains its own currency.
The people of the United States do not expect a reaction and are prepared to maintain their terror in the world through the worldwide reach of their electronic weapons, including unmanned aircraft. Their destiny, if it occurs, will be that of the lone gunman, who delights in murdering the innocent from a distance, until someone manages, with the same method, to bring them down. And there is no shortage of those who are preparing for it.
Translated from the portuguese version by:
terça-feira, 22 de novembro de 2011
CAPITALISM AND POVERTY IN THE U.S.
All these objectives required the commitment of time, strength and mind. It was a way for what was called "civilization," although there were others, more generous, and in pursuit of justice. Like all processes of life, capitalism has its limits. When you get past the looting and plundering, and this has occurred several times in history, there are major crises that almost always lead to bloody conflicts, internal and external.
Foreign Affairs magazine reflects the concerns of the American intelligentsia (both the left and right). Published in its latest issue is an excellent essay by George Packer - "The broken contract, Inequality and American Decline." Packer is a man of the establishment. His parents are professors at Stanford University. His maternal grandfather, George Huddleston, of Alabama, was the Democratic representative in Congress for twenty years.
The journalist shows that social inequality in the United States has worsened over the past roughly 33 years - from 1978. That year, with high rates of inflation, the increase in gasoline prices, higher unemployment and widespread pessimism, there was a major change in American life. The great interests acted in order to charge the crisis to the state of social welfare and regulation of economic life that came from the New Deal.
Public opinion was intoxicated by this idea and gave confidence in the established social commitment in the years during the 30s and 40s. According to Packer, this commitment was that of a middle-class democracy. It was an unwritten social contract between labor, business and government, which ensured wider distribution of the benefits of the economy and prosperity after the war - as in no other time in history.
A significant factor: in 70 years, is that the highest-paid executives in the United States received 40 times the salary of the lowest paid workers of their companies. In 2007, they started to receive 400 times more. In those 70 years, Packer records, the American elites were even responsible for the fate of the country, and with the natural exceptions, watched over by their institutions and interests.
There is, the author ponders, a lot of injustice, especially against blacks from the South. Like all seasons, the post-war until 1970 had its costs, but the situation in 2011 had seemed bearable.
In 70 years, there was stagflation, which combined economic stagnation with inflation and high interest rates. Wages were eroded by inflation, unemployment rose, and the confidence of Americans in government fell, also because of the Watergate scandal and the disaster that was the adventure of Vietnam.
Capitalism seemed in danger and this alarmed the wealthy, who sought to respond immediately. They worked - especially since 1978 - to secure their position, making it even stronger. They tried to strengthen their influence by enhancing lobbyng, which has always existed, but, except for some cases, was limited to whiskey and cigars.
Since then, bribery has become common practice. In 1971, there were 141 companies represented by lobbyists in Washington. In 1982, there were 2,445.
Reagan's long and massive transfer of income in the country in favor the wealthiest Americans became more serious. It was constant, both in the best periods of the economy as the worst, under Democratic presidents or Republican, or Democrat to Republican majorities in Congress.
Representatives and Senators - always with exceptions - started to normally receive bribes from Wall Street. Packer cites the statement of Republican Robert Dole in 1982, "The poor do not contribute to election campaigns."
Packer goes deeper: inequality is like an odorless gas that reaches all corners of the country - but it seems impossible to find its source and close the tap. Between 1974 and 2006, the income of the middle class grew 21%, while that of poor Americans grew by only 11%.
The incomes of one percent of the richest grew by 256%, over ten times those of the middle class, and almost tripled its share in total income of the country, 23%, the highest level since 1928 - the eve of the Great Depression.
This registered growth came from before. From Kennedy to Bush the second, slower before Reagan, and then faster, the American rich have become richer.
Inequality, Packer concludes, favors the division of classes, and imprisons people in the circumstances of their birth, which constitutes a historical denial of the idea of the "American dream."
He concludes: "Inequality divides us in the schools, between neighbors, at work, on airplanes, in hospitals, what we eat, our physical condition, what we think, the future of our children and even about our death." Finally, inequality is exacerbated by the boundless ambitions of capitalism, not only with violence against ethics, but also against logic. It's crazy, it's madness.
To the whole world - the commentary is ours - there was imposed due to the absence of statesmen ready to react, the same pattern of inequality seen with Reaganism and Thatcherism. The most recent economic crisis, caused by the greed of Wall Street, served as a lesson to those servile to the rulers of money, who were handed to the salaried technocrats of the international financial system.
Yesterday, Mario Monti, a Goldman Sachs man, placed in power by the creditors of Italy, was still demanding of the Parliament the security of remaining at the leadership of government until 2013. This means violating the constitution of the country, which gives the people's representatives the power of denying confidence to the government and, depending on the situation, calling elections.
The right path is the more equitable distribution of national income, expanding the domestic market and thus combat inequality and submit the technocracy to political reason. It is necessary, among other measures, to keep a close watch on the private banks, mostly foreign, who are covering the shenanigans of its central institutions with high profits in our country and other Latin American countries.
Translated from the portuguese version by:
this text was also published in the following sites:
sábado, 8 de outubro de 2011
A WEEK IN SEPTEMBER
The two gentlemen did not arrogant spoke on behalf of the men cried out on behalf of the guns and big bankers without a country that, since the Rotschild, maintain force against the reason that region of the world. As many historians have pointed out, the rich Jews, under the leadership of the powerful family of financiers, decided to follow the former Pan-German Theodor Herzl, the idea of creating a Jewish state in order to get rid of the embarrassing presence of poor Jews in England and Western Europe.
domingo, 24 de julho de 2011
THE INTERNET AND THE REBELLION OF MEN
Imagine that in February 1848 there already was a worldwide network of computers. Suppose that instead of printing the first few copies of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels had used the Internet, so that all workers, Europeans and North Americans, could read the text. What would the development process have been? As we know, 1848 was the year of workers' uprisings in Europe, with all the repression and violence.
Capitalism was savage then, one of the bastard children of the French Revolution that became excited by the defeat of the workers. In France, the bourgeoisie took power and defeated the monarchy, took it without disguise and without intermediaries, in a period that historians call "The Republic of businessmen." Workers and intellectuals tried later in 1871, soon after France's defeat to the Germans, to create an autonomous and egalitarian government in Paris. With the help of the invaders, the Army of Thiers executed 20,000 Parisians on the streets.
The popular demonstrations in Arab countries, which the governments and media of the United States and Europe greeted as the end of the tyrants and the beginning of the democratization of the Islamic world, enter a new stage, reaching the rich countries. Hurried analysts are made to revise their conclusions. The ailment that took people to the streets is not limited to North Africa, it is a worldwide phenomenon.
One of the contradictions of capitalism, especially in this new stage of rampant imperialism, in which national governments are merely servants of the owners of money, is its inability to set limits. Today, the United States - which was, at one time, a space for the realization of millions of people through work - the difference between rich and poor is greater than during its entire history, including the time of slavery. One percent of the U.S. population owns 40% of the national wealth. The same situation is true in almost all Nordic countries.
When this text was written, thousands of people were camped out in central Madrid, in continuity with Real Democracy, Already, they began on May 15, with protests in all major Spanish cities. Spain today is dominated by multinational companies and big bankers, who not only exploit the national work, they also live from exploiting Latin American countries.
Banks like Santander - whose most dramatic results are achieved in Brazil - to divide the two parties that take turns in power (the socialists and conservatives), the result is the robbery of the country's economy. It is against this hateful system that the Spaniards took to the streets and in the streets they continue.
It isn't only the young unemployed who are indignant. It is mainly the women and older men who stimulate the movement. They feel that their children and grandchildren will be condemned to a future increasingly dark and more violent if citizens do not react immediately.
The Spaniards are promoting the international networking of similar movements that occur in other countries, like Iceland, France, England and even the United States. If the financial system has been linked with the Washington Consensus and the regular meetings between the world's richest men of the planet, in order to dominate and exploit people globally, it is necessary that the citizens of the whole world react.
Marx wanted all workers of the world united. The movement today is broader and its motto might be: human beings around the world, unite.
Translated from the Portuguese version by:
this text was also published in the following sites: