TTIP or the law of the jungle

If it is true that today the world is at a crossroads, two forces are currently in times of struggle. And if it is true that the we are the system, becomes ever more urgent that we start taking sides in this fight, because the reality seems to be happening above us, and we are not realizing.

Exists and is working now in a transnational trade agreement that will affect the whole world, will the change many of the already minimal structures of protection and of rights of the  citizens and why not say, of governments themselves. But you will have not read in any newspaper or on television, or by any means of mass communication, so that once again they have been heralded as genuine accomplices of power, not the citizenry and public opinion, by the theoretically have their rationale.

Politically, the agreement will eliminate differences between American and European regulations —’Eeuuroflags’, Javier Aristu, 2014

On November 28 2011 was created the Working Group High Level Jobs and Growth, in order to explore possible avenues for increasing investment and trade between the US and the EU. In June 2013, EU and US announced ‘the solution’: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement —TTIP is its acronym in English—. This agreement is a free trade agreement with historical and terrible precedents, terrible why none have achieved the objectives posed to social and employment level, if not the opposite. The NAFTA, for example, was predicted by the voice of Bill Clinton the creation of 20 million new jobs and after years has destroyed a million jobs and has increased the insecurity of those left standing.

Well, the TTIP has its reason for being, in theory, because will create —said by the most optimistic voices— two million new jobs and a GDP growth of 1% per annum for US and EU. However, in front of such encouraging figures, none of the powers —including Spain— has made public these estimates, neither have said a word about the treaty nor included as part of its political program, to get voters. Curious, very curious.

What pretends the treaty is to reduce all trade restrictions between the two powers, tariff and which are not tariff. Tariffs between the US and EU are already very low, almost symbolic, there is an almost free trade between the two powers. However, non-tariff restrictions maintaining sovereignty in type laws, labor, social, environmental and economic policies themselves are very different on either side of the ocean. It is here where the treaty aims to influence more strongly, and is basically his real reason for being.

Very different regulations

Europe has a policy more stringent than US levels. For start there are the welfare states in Europe stronger and more extensive in the world, compared to the US which has the weakest welfare state that exists in the Western world. In the dimension of rights cannot be further from each other, neither the regulations concerning the use, production, or use of agricultural chemicals and genetically modified products. In the US there are tens of chemicals, but are banned in Europe. In the US, for example, to determine which products are dangerous for human consumption is the government itself who studies and concludes and if you can market or not. In Europe the process is reversed, the companies who must prove that these products are not toxic, then the government approves or not for consumption.

Environmental laws are much laxer there than here, and returning it to name those concerning social rights are incomparable. Moreover, the economic models and production differ at all levels. In the EU, 99% of GDP consists of small and medium enterprises and their destruction would adversely affect their economies, something that has been said ad nauseam in EU. US has a model that is inversely based on large multinational corporations  and large armies of workers, technically called working-poors, only two of the rights established by the International Organization of Workers are met, in front of the eight rights respected in Europe. Moreover, since their model of welfare and production, US have the most deregulated, free-market and most neoliberal economy of the world.

Economically, the agreement between the United States and the European Union will affect to 60% of global GDP —’Eeuuromoney’, Javier Aristu, 2014

Leveling contingencies

Well, the TTIP it aims to standardize these differences, and on either side of these barriers or restrictions —called contingencies— want to be equivalent by both parties of the agreement. But the fact is, to achieve this, clearly Europe will have to do more lax regulations for all, because if what is needed is leveling Europe, must necessarily lower the level of its laws towards new and less restrictive. As Juan Torres López, specialist in Applied Economy and member of the Scientific Council of ATTAC, says in an interview for the website DailyMotion, this agreement as to the contingencies will mean three major changes:

1 —The agreement will make the exchange of products equivalence is established,what is good there, here is good too , the rules are standardized, and products that are banned here may be marketed and therefore consumed. Some examples are:  with hormone-treated beef and veal, turkey and chicken cleaning with  chlorine or greater number of transgenic products, all hitherto banned in the EU. And it is not necessary contained on labels —another fundamental difference—.

2 —Laws and specific courts for what is called ‘investment protection’. If an investor or company operates for example in the same sector as the public, can ask the same condition or better to compete with it freely and therefore the public sector be left unprotected.

3 —Creation of specific courts for such regulations, that historical experience with similar treaties said to be discrete and silent publicly and often highly arbitrary.

In short, an authentic and definitive blow to democracy and sovereignty of nations, governments and the public sector. A final blow to the emerging economies, because the West is allying with the West —US and EU account for 60% of global GDP—, but with the freedom to continue relocating. And finally, the triumph of one of the two tendencies in struggle, the no democratization and free markets where the maximum benefit reigns above all else, nature, individual rights and society. The treaty still in negotiations now; the Commissioner DeGucht, one of his captains, said that negotiations should remain confidential until its end. The deal could be in place later this year or early next. In Spain, on May 6 2014, IU raised a referendum for TTIP which was rejected by voting against PP, PSOE, CiU, PNV and UPyD, i.e., all major parties. One last item of interest: nine of the ten parts that make up the treaty negotiators are formed by lobbyists and corporations.

Bye bye Old Continent, hello Mc Donald’s! What can we do?

Related posts
array(2) { [0]=> int(899) [1]=> int(25) }
array(4) { [0]=> object(WP_Post)#1642 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(3089) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-08-20 00:01:08" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-08-19 22:01:08" ["post_content"]=> string(1856) "Para el sociólogo francés Émile Durkheim, uno de los grandes pioneros en el estudio de las ciencias sociales junto a Karl Marx y Max Weber, los seres humanos son criaturas cuyos deseos son ilimitados; al contrario que otros animales, no quedan saciados cuando sus necesidades biológicas son satisfechas. Semejante circunstancia sólo puede ser manejada con éxito por elementos externos al propio ser humano, según Durkheim: las religiones y las sociedades, con sus conjuntos de reglas morales y éticas, deben servir para poner límites al deseo individual y funcionar como 'una fuerza reguladora que cumpla el mismo rol respecto a las necesidades morales que el cumplido por el organismo para las necesidades físicas'. Este vídeo está inspirado por estas ideas, concebidas a finales del siglo XIX, y reflexiona sobre su vigencia en la vida de hoy, a principios del XXI.For the French sociologist Emile Durkheim, one of the great pioneers in the study of social sciences with Karl Marx and Max Weber, humans are creatures whose desires are unlimited, and unlike other animals, are not satisfied when their biological needs are satisfied. According to Durkheim, these circumstances can only be successfully managed by elements external to the human being: the religions and societies, with their sets of moral and ethical rules, should serve to put limits on individual desire and work as 'a regulatory force that fulfills the same role with respect to the moral needs met by the body for the physical needs'. This video is inspired by these ideas, conceived in the late nineteenth century, and reflects on its relevance in today's life in early XXI." ["post_title"]=> string(81) "Ningún hombre es una islaNo man is an island" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(19) "no-man-is-an-island" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2014-07-13 14:29:40" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-07-13 12:29:40" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=3089" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [1]=> object(WP_Post)#1629 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(5549) ["post_author"]=> string(3) "390" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2014-01-19 00:01:08" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2014-01-18 23:01:08" ["post_content"]=> string(16800) "La Renta Básica Universal es una política económica, en materia de economía y filosofía política. Aunque cuenta con numerosos precursores —Paine, Fourier, Van Parijs, More o Tobin, dentro de las disciplinas mencionadas— ha sido difundida y popularizada en España por Daniel Raventós y la Red Renta Básica. Con su propuesta se pretenden reformar algunas de las estructuras claves del capitalismo contemporáneo: la propiedad en sentido amplio, el trabajo y la libertad e igualdad de los individuos, para así suavizarlo y convertirlo en un modelo económico donde se vea aumentado el equilibrio social y menguada la desigualdad y la injusticia que hoy vivimos a nivel planetario. Según la definición que ofrece la Red Renta Básica, la RBU es un ingreso pagado por el Estado, como derecho de ciudadanía, a cada miembro de pleno derecho residente de la sociedad donde se implante, independientemente de si no quiere o no puede trabajar de forma remunerada, sin tomar en consideración si es rico o pobre o, dicho de otra forma, independientemente de cuáles puedan ser sus otras posibles fuentes de renta, y sin importar con quién conviva. Es por tanto universal y sustituye cualquier otro tipo de prestación condicionada.
La Renta Básica Universal no toma en consideración tus ingresos o rentas, del mismo modo que la Seguridad Social —Imagen Unknown Author
Es una cantidad fijada según los datos económicos de cada país y coyuntura; en el caso de España, podría ser de alrededor de unos 500 euros —en términos más exactos, en 2007 podía ser de 451,6 euros, hoy se estima en 664— para los adultos y una quinta parte para los menores de 18 años. Esta cantidad es cercana al salario mínimo interprofesional y garantiza las condiciones de existencia básicas y dejaría a todo ciudadano por encima del umbral de la pobreza, referencia clave para la cantidad fijada por cada estado. Financiación y regulación Se puede financiar de diferentes maneras, pero la más aceptada y defendida por la Red Renta Básica —en España y otros países asociados— y de más valor redistributivo de la riqueza se realizaría a través de una reforma fiscal del IRPF, fijando un tipo único del 57,5% para todas aquellas rentas superiores a la RBU y liberando a las inferiores de cualquier carga impositiva. La RBU también es financiada, según este modelo, a través del ahorro de los costes de todo el aparato administrativo y burocrático que requieren los subsidios condicionados. Raventós, sostiene que con esta reforma fiscal, el 70% de la población con menos renta saldría beneficiada de la reforma, el 20% más rico perdería —se redistribuiría su riqueza— y el 10% entre esos dos tramos quedaría indiferente después de la reforma. Dividiendo la población en lugar de por porcentajes por deciles en la riqueza, perderían riqueza a partir del sexto decil más rico, esto se imbricaría y tomaría sentido con el concepto rawlsiano de 'desigualdades justas', las que crean desigualdad positiva a los que están peor situados. Los que más ganan después de esta reforma, sin duda son los que no tienen ingresos de partida. La riqueza se distribuye desde los más ricos hacia los más pobres, dirección contraria a la de hoy, donde la acumulación del capital se hace a través del expolio y la desposesión —D. Harvey, 'Acumulación por desposesión'—, se concentra en unos, se escapa a los otros. La RBU, por supuesto, una vez implantada, debe ir acompañada de una cierta regulación en las leyes que atañen al mercado de bienes y al mercado de trabajo. La RBU es condición necesaria pero no suficiente. También, la preparación social para entender y exigir como propio el derecho a la existencia y una viabilidad política que la haga posible serían algunas de las condiciones claves para su implantación y desarrollo. El derecho básico Durante la Revolución Francesa, cuna de los valores europeos y occidentales —Igualdad, Libertad y Fraternidad—, Robespierre, empapado de las ideas de la Ilustración, propagaba la idea, apoyado en los autores clásicos, de que el primer derecho del que emanan todos los demás es el derecho a la existencia; en el marco actual este derecho primordial es una lucha diaria, y en muchos casos una verdadera carrera de obstáculos. W_lalibertadguiandoalpueblo
Durante la Revolución Francesa, Robespierre difundió la idea de que el primer derecho del que emanan todos los demás es el derecho a la existencia —'La libertad guiando al pueblo', Eugène Delacroix, 1830
La existencia material garantizada como camino a la libertad e igualdad real de las personas es y ha sido un concepto manejado y trabajado por muchos filósofos clásicos y contemporáneos dentro de la tradición republicana —Aristóteles, Maquiavelo, Cicerón—. La idea de que un ciudadano no es libre si no tiene la libertad de no necesitar depender de otro para vivir, es antigua y está llena de fundamentos filosóficos: si un individuo no puede depender de sí mismo para vivir, si necesita de un tercero para ese fin, no es libre, no es sui iuris —en latín, (ciudadano) 'de propio derecho'—, es decir, tiene que pedir permiso para vivir. Está en ese caso, a merced de las condiciones del otro y en el marco actual, de los vaivenes y cambios del mercado de trabajo y de sus condiciones, y en consecuencia no de sus necesidades y elecciones reales. Capacidades y necesidades La RBU se basa en el principio filosófico que afirma 'a cada cual según sus capacidades, a cada cual según sus necesidades' —Saint Simón, Fourier, Bakunin—, con la libertad y la igualdad como paraguas filosófico para una sociedad justa de ciudadanos libres e iguales. Intenta resolver el problema filosófico acerca de la libertad individual, que desde los clásicos ha preocupado a muchos pensadores. En su formulación contemporánea, Philippe Van Parijs, reformulador teórico entre otros de la actual Renta Básica y autor de 'Real Freedom for all' —Libertad real para todos—, una sociedad realmente libre es aquella que satisface las tres condiciones siguientes, en este orden de prioridad: 1—Seguridad: existe una estructura de derechos y libertades básicas bien articulada; 2—Propiedad de uno mismo: en esa estructura, cada persona es propietaria de sí misma y de las decisiones sobre su vida; y 3—Ordenamiento leximin de la oportunidad: es decir, en esa estructura, cada persona cuenta con la mayor oportunidad posible para hacer cualquier cosa que pudiera querer hacer. En una sociedad realmente libre, quienes tengan menos oportunidades de partida, tendrán las máximas que podrían tener en cualquier otro orden social que podamos llevar a cabo. Algunas de las ventajas de facto que podrían crear la implantación de la RBU a través de una reforma fiscal del IRPF, serían las siguientes: 1— Redistribución de la riqueza. 2— Mejora de los estratos socio-económicos más bajos de la sociedad a todos los niveles, siempre más vulnerables y al límite del no acceso al empleo y otros recursos para la vida. Aumento de las oportunidades. 3— Aumento de la capacidad de negociación del trabajador, por la eliminación del factor necesidad que imposibilita la libertad en sentido profundo —de elección—. 4— Aumento de las condiciones de los trabajos más desagradables —al disminuir su demanda y tolerancia delante de según qué condiciones—. 5— Ahorro de los costes administrativos de vigilancia y control: al encontrar trabajo no se pierde la RBU, con el consiguiente probable descenso del trabajo ilegal y de la economía sumergida. 6— Redistribución del trabajo entre más de uno, o partición de las jornadas de trabajo entre más de uno. No necesidad de las ocho horas, libertad de elección de cuánto tiempo se destina al trabajo remunerado —según necesidad—. Y por tanto aumento en el número de puestos de trabajo, con el consiguiente descenso del desempleo. 7— Aumento del equilibrio y la elección entre los tres tipos de trabajo que existen: el trabajo remunerado, el trabajo doméstico y el trabajo voluntario o autotélico. Según las necesidades y elección de cada individuo. Mayor equilibrio social. 8— Y la más importante y que sustenta a las demás: aumento de la igualdad entre las personas, pero sobre todo de la libertad.The Universal Basic Income is a theory, in relation with economic policy. Although there are numerous precursors —Paine, Fourier, Van Parijs, More, Tobin— in Spain has been spread by Daniel Raventós and Red Basic Income, which amends some of the key structures of contemporary Capitalism as the property in broad meaning, work and freedom of individuals, softening the contemporary Capitalism and makes increasing balance and diminishing social inequality and injustice that we now live on a planetary level. The Universal Basic Income or UBI as defined by the Basic Income Network 'is a income paid by state, as a right of citizenship, each full member or resident of society income even if you do not want to work for pay, if you are rich or poor or, no matter what may be the other possible sources of income, and no matter who coexist. It is therefore universal and supersedes any other provision conditional'.
Universal Basic Income does not mind if you are poor or rich, in the same way as Social Security —Image Unknown Author
It is a fixed amount according to economic data for each country and situation, in the case of Spain, it could be around 500 euros —in exact terms, in 2007 was 451,6 euros, today is estimated at 664— for adults and one-fifth for those under 18. This amount is close to the minimum wage and basic conditions of existence and let every citizen above the poverty line, the basic reference for setting the amount. Financing and regulation The UBI can be financed in different ways, but the most accepted and defended by the Income Basic Network —Spain and other associated countries— and more redistributive value of wealth is done through a fiscal reform of income tax, setting a single rate of 57,5% for those above the UBI —any for below incomes—. Basic Income is also funded in this model, through cost savings for all administrative and bureaucratic apparatus requiring conditional grants. 'With this tax reform, 70% of the population with less income would benefit from the reform, the richest 20% lose —their wealth be redistributed— and 10% in between these two sections, would be indifferent after the reform', says Raventós. If we divide the population rather than percentages by deciles, would lose wealth from the richest sixth decile of the population, makes sense and relates with the rawlsian concept of 'fair inequalities', which create positive inequity those who are worse off. So all were more equal —indivisibility of freedom and equality, in the philosophy of Kant, for example, are inseparable—. Which are most benefited after the reform are undoubtedly those without any income. The wealth goes of the richest to the poorest, the opposite direction from today where capital accumulation is distributed through the plundering and dispossession —D. Harvey, 'Accumulation by dispossession'—, is concentrated in some and escapes to the others. Basic Income, of course, should be accompanied by some regulation in the legislation concerning the market and the labor market, once implanted. The UBI is necessary but not enough. The social preparation to understand and demand as its own the right to existence, and political viability that would make possible, are some of the key conditions for the its implantation and development. The basic right As Robespierre said during The French Revolution, the first right which emanate all others is the right to exist, in the current framework this fundamental right is a daily struggle, and in some cases a real obstacle. W_lalibertadguiandoalpueblo
During the French Revolution, Robespierre spread the idea that the first right from which everyone else emanates is the right to existence —'Liberty leading the people', Eugène Delacroix, 1830
The guaranty of material existence, as a path to freedom and real equality of persons, is a concept has been studied and worked for many classic and contemporary philosophers in the republican tradition —Aristotle, Machiavelli, Cicero— but also many others. The idea that a citizen is not free if don't have the freedom to not need to rely on another to live, even if it sometimes, is old and is full of philosophical foundations around the idea that if one can not depend on itself to live, if you need a third person you are not free, is not sui iuris —in Latin, 'citizens of the rights itself'—, that is, you must ask permission to live. It is depends of other conditions, and in the current framework of the fluctuations and changes in the labor market and its conditions and not their real needs and choices. Capacities and needs Basic Income is based on the philosophical principle that says 'to each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs' —Saint Simon, Fourier, Bakunin—, freedom and equality as a philosophical umbrella for a just society of free and equal citizens. Try to solve the philosophical problem about individual freedom, which from the classical has concerned many thinkers. In its contemporary formulation, Philippe Van Parijs, theoretical reformulator including the current Basic Income and author of 'Real freedom for all', a truly free society is one that satisfies the following three conditions in this order of priority: 1— Security: there is a structure of rights and well articulated basic freedoms; 2— Self-ownership: structure in that each person owns his life decisions; and 3— Leximin system opportunity: by that structure each person has the greatest possible opportunity to do anything could want to do. In a truly free society, those with fewer opportunities starting, have the maximum that could have in any other social order that we can perform. Some of the advantages that create de facto implementation of the UBI through a tax reform of personal income tax would be: 1— Redistribution of wealth. 2— Improving the lower strata of society at all levels, always more vulnerable and limited access to employment. Increased opportunities. 3— Increased bargaining power of the worker, eliminating the need for factor, which makes freedom impossible. 4— Increasing the conditions of the most unpleasant jobs. 5— Savings in administrative costs control, receiving the UBI, to find work not lose, probably decrease of illegal work. 6— Redistribution of work among more than one partition or the working days between more than one. No need for eight hours, freedom to choose how much time is allocated to paid work —as required—. 7— Increased balance between the three types of work exist: paid work, housework and volunteer work. Depending on requirements, and choice of each individual. Best social balance. 8— And the most important: increasing equality between people, but especially of freedom." ["post_title"]=> string(100) "El derecho a una existencia dignaThe right to a decent existence" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(31) "the-right-to-a-decent-existence" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-06-16 09:25:49" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-06-16 07:25:49" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=5549" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [2]=> object(WP_Post)#1643 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(2938) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2012-07-09 00:05:51" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2012-07-08 22:05:51" ["post_content"]=> string(3789) "Noam Chomsky es un lingüista, filósofo y activista estadounidense. Profesor emérito de lingüística en el MIT —Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts—, está considerado una de las figuras más destacadas en dicha especialidad gracias a sus trabajos sobre teoría lingüística y ciencia cognitiva, como la Jerarquía de Chomsky. Doctor Honoris Causa por la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, la Universidad de la Frontera de Chile y la Universidad Autónoma de México, el periódico The New York Times llegó a definirlo como 'el más importante de los pensadores contemporáneos'. Aunque quizá la faceta más popular de Chomsky sea su firme compromiso con la política, que comenzó en los años de la guerra de Vietnam y le llevó a afiliarse al sindicato IWW / Industrial Workers of the World —Trabajadores Industriales del Mundo—. Su activismo está caracterizado por una fuerte crítica al capitalismo contemporáneo, a la política exterior de Estados Unidos e Israel y a la manipulación de la población por parte de la élites económicas y los gobiernos. Uno de sus principales aportes intelectuales en el ámbito de la política ha sido el análisis de los medios de comunicación y los enfoques sesgados, o incluso engaños, que percibe detrás de su supuesta neutralidad. Se trata de un trabajo de contrainformación que ha inspirado a muchos otros autores y ha sido plasmado en obras como el ensayo 'Los guardianes de la libertad' —Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media—, escrito en 1988 en colaboración con el economista y profesor de la Universidad de Pennsylvania Edward S. Herman. En este vídeo se cuestiona si los miembros de una sociedad democrática bombardeada constantemente con técnicas de marketing pueden ser capaces de escoger libremente.Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher and activist. Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the MIT —Massachusetts Institute of Technology—, he is considered one of the leading figures in this field thanks to his work on linguistic theory and cognitive science, as the Chomsky Hierarchy. Doctor Honoris Causa by the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Universidad de la Frontera de Chile and the Universidad Autónoma de México, The New York Times once defined him as 'one of the most important contemporary thinkers'. But perhaps the most popular aspect of Chomsky is his strongly committment to politics that began in the years of the Vietnam War and led him to join the union IWW / Industrial Workers of the World. His activism is characterized by a strong criticism of contemporary capitalism, the United States’ and Israel foreign policy and the manipulation of the population by the economic elites and governments. One of its main intellectual contributions in the field of politics has been the analysis of the media and biased approaches, or even cheating, that he perceives behind his supposed neutrality. This is a work of disinformation that has inspired many other authors and has been reflected in works like the essay 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media', written in 1988 in collaboration with the economist and professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Edward S. Herman. This video questions whether members of a democratic society, bombed with marketing techniques, may be able to choose freely." ["post_title"]=> string(116) "¿Son compatibles democracia y marketing?Are democracy and marketing compatible?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(38) "are-democracy-and-marketing-compatible" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-03-03 00:52:07" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-03-02 23:52:07" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=2938" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "1" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } [3]=> object(WP_Post)#1787 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(5166) ["post_author"]=> string(4) "2049" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2013-08-19 00:01:28" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2013-08-18 22:01:28" ["post_content"]=> string(7376) "El triángulo de la violencia, definido por el sociólogo noruego Johan Galtung, identifica tres tipos de violencia y sostiene que el fenómeno tiene una estructura similar a la de un iceberg, ya que tras su parte visible siempre existe una mucho mayor que permanece oculta. La violencia directa correspondería a la punta del iceberg y tiene como principal característica el hecho de que la mayoría de sus efectos son visibles, principalmente los materiales, aunque no todos: el odio generado, los traumas psicológicos creados o la aparición de conceptos como el de 'enemigo' son efectos igual de graves que no suelen ser considerados como tales. Al ser el tipo de violencia más conocida y evidente, es común pensar que es la peor de todas las violencias, lo cual no es cierto precisamente por esa visibilidad, que la hace más fácil de identificar y por tanto de combatir. Es importante señalar que este tipo de violencia es la manifestación de algo, no su origen, y es en los orígenes donde deben buscarse las causas y puede actuarse con mayor eficacia. La violencia directa no afecta a tantas personas como las otras dos, cultural y estructural, que formarían la parte oculta del iceberg. La violencia cultural es una violencia simbólica, que se expresa en infinidad de medios —religión, ideología, lenguaje, arte, ciencia, medios de comunicación, educación, etc—y cumple la función de legitimar la violencia directa y estructural, así como de inhibir o reprimir la respuesta de quienes la sufren. Ofrece incluso justificaciones para que los seres humanos, a diferencia del resto de especies, se destruyan mutuamente y hasta sean recompensados por hacerlo: no es extraño aceptar la violencia en nombre de la patria o de la religión. Existe una cultura de la violencia en la que las escuelas y demás medios de transmisión y reproducción de cultura muestran la historia como una sucesión de guerras; la costumbre es que los conflictos se repriman por la incuestionable autoridad paterna, o por la autoridad del macho sobre la hembra; los medios de comunicación de masas venden el uso de ejércitos como la vía principal de solución de los conflictos internacionales, etc. De modo que la vida transcurre en un ambiente de violencia constante, que se manifiesta a diario en todos los ámbitos y a todos los niveles. La violencia estructural aparece cuando, como resultado de procesos de estratificación social, se produce un perjuicio en la satisfacción de las necesidades humanas básicas: supervivencia, bienestar, identidad, libertad, etc. Está originada por todo un conjunto de estructuras, tanto físicas como organizativas, que no permiten la satisfacción de esas necesidades y es la peor de las tres violencias porque es el origen de todas, la que más mata y a más personas afecta. Es también un tipo de violencia indirecta y en ocasiones incluso no intencionada: las acciones que provocan el hambre en el mundo, por ejemplo, no están diseñadas y realizadas directamente con ese fin, sino que derivan de la política económica capitalista y el injusto reparto de la riqueza. Esto provoca que, al contrario de lo que ocurre con la violencia directa, en ocasiones las causas que producen la violencia estructural no sean visibles con claridad y sea más complicado enfrentarse a ella. Siempre según Galtung, a menudo las causas de la violencia directa están relacionadas con situaciones de violencia estructural y justificadas por la violencia cultural: muchas situaciones son consecuencia de un abuso de poder que recae sobre un grupo oprimido, o de una situación de injusticia social —reparto de recursos insuficiente, gran desigualdad en la renta de las personas, dificultad de acceso a los servicios sociales— y reciben el espaldarazo de discursos que las justifican.The triangle of violence, defined by the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, identifies three types of violence and argues that the phenomenon has a similar structure to that of an iceberg, in which there is always a small visible part and a huge hidden part. Direct violence is the tip of the iceberg and has as its main characteristic the fact that most of its effects are visible, mainly the materials, but not all of them: hate, psychological trauma or the emergence of concepts such as 'enemy' are equally serious effects, but they are often not seen as such. Being the most popular and obvious, it is commonly thought that direct is the worst kind of violence, which is not true for precisely this visibility, which makes it easier to identify and therefore to combat. It is important to note that this type of violence is the manifestation of something, not its origin, and is in the beginning where it should be sought causes and act more effectively. Direct violence does not affect many people as cultural and structural violence, which are the hidden part of the iceberg. Cultural violence is a symbolic violence that is expressed in countless media —religion, ideology, language, art, science, media, education, etc— and serves to legitimize direct and structural violence and to inhibit or suppress the response of the victims. It even offers justifications for humans, unlike other species, to destroy each other and to be rewarded for doing so: it is not strange to accept violence in the name of country or religion. There is a culture of violence in which schools and other instruments of transmission and reproduction of culture show History as a succession of wars; it is usual to suppress conflicts by unquestioned parental authority, or authority of the male over the female; mass media sell armies use as the main way of solving international conflicts, etc. So life goes on in an atmosphere of constant violence, manifested daily in all areas and at all levels. Structural violence is displayed when, as a result of social stratification processes, there is a damage in the satisfaction of basic human needs: survival, welfare, identity, freedom, etc. It is caused by a set of structures, both physical and organizational, which do not allow the satisfaction of those needs and is the worst of the three violence because it is the origin of all and kills and affects more people. It is also a form of indirect violence and sometimes even unintentional: the actions that cause hunger, for example, are not designed and made ​​directly for that purpose, but they are result from capitalist economic policy and the unfair distribution of wealth. This sometimes causes that the reasons of structural violence are not clearly visible and therefore it is more difficult to deal with it. According to Galtung, often causes of direct violence are related to structural violence and justified by cultural violence: many situations are the result of an abuse of power which concerns an oppressed group, or a social injustice —insufficient resources sharing, great inequality in personal income, limited access to social services— and receive the backing of speeches justifying them." ["post_title"]=> string(117) "Violencia directa, cultural y estructuralDirect, cultural and structural violence" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(39) "direct-cultural-and-structural-violence" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2021-06-07 12:57:44" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2021-06-07 10:57:44" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(29) "http://whatonline.org/?p=5166" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } }