By: Dante Palma
(Piblicado originalmene in the Journal Veitirés)
Source: http://elinfiernodedanteblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/el-fin-del-mercado-como-verdad.html
Probably there has been no review of the years of Nestor Kirchner in power that would not do emphasized that his leadership marked the return and claim the policy on the economy. Hence, although I assume that the complexity of contemporary societies require to be more cautious and take into account a lot of nuances, it would be quite improper to take as variables the tension between economics and politics as the axis on which to explain, at least the difference between the prevailing trend in the 90 and the paradigm shift that spanned much of the first decade of the century.
If we interpret politics as circumscribed to actions that come from the Government, poor but useful definition for the purposes of this note, it is clear that the process of self-reduction of the state in pursuit of private interests and forces "harmonics" that govern the market, represents a cut of the possibilities of politics. Based on a modern conception of freedom, neo-liberals interpret that any state interference is harmful and detrimental to the pursuit of individual desires and ideals of the good life of each individual. Protection of private property over physical and legal security. No more than that. Everything else maximalism embodies the danger of state. Obviously, the implosion of 2001 was a change in economic policy but That does not necessarily imply a variation in the conception of the role that the State must meet for high exchange rate and hence the natural promotion of exports is not, in itself, synonymous with anti-liberal economic policy. But since 2003, the nationalization of some utilities, renegotiating debt, independently of the IMF, the FTAA Not generally a policy of outright opposition to the guidelines of the Washington Consensus, were changes visible that appeared as factual support what was, gradually and even with infinite number of flats, a process of cultural transformation that would reinstate a conception of State and society that says that policy should be determined to economics and not vice versa.
But what means this change? What depths acquired? In what field is being waged? The answer is difficult but to try an approach I borrow the philosopher Michel Foucault an idea of \u200b\u200bthe significance of the market for neoliberalism. At the risk
countless other inaccuracies, I would rebuild part of the argument that the French philosopher stated in his course at the College de France in the year 78-79 and was published in book form under the name The Birth of Biopolitics. For Foucault, the liberal tradition that proclaims by a minimal state stands on the market as the court of good governance. Thus, it is the economy that will determine the market politics is the thermometer to assess government actions. The market not only serves as a limit to the sovereignty of political power as the place where "should not go" but also that will determine whether the policy is "on the right track." Thus, Foucault asserts that the market went from being a place where it appears the "justice" to a place where it appears the "truth", ie that which was originally a market square where there was a regulation that allowed achieve a fair price for a product and which limited the possibilities of fraud, there is now a market where what appears is a "truth" that will give an account of what government actions are right and which wrong. And here we return to the Argentine case and ask ourselves are we not today witness of those tough neo-liberal forces in the opposition attempt to assert that the employer to assess what the government does is the market? Is it not said, finally, that since the market is the place of truth, the reaction of the operators of our "City" is what marks the pulse and allow us to determine if the government does well or wrong? Is not it suggests that if the government is not telling the truth about the numbers from INDEC, the entire policy, not just economic, it is a farce? Finally, the fact that economists, almost as a kind of postmodern mediums, are those that citizens and governments should listen to know the future of the country and to act on it, is not part of this trend of genuflection of politics with the economy?
It is from this idea that can shed light, for example, one of the central axis CFK exhibited at the last meeting of the G20 and that would be embedded in the tradition of true Peronism, as to profess economic independence. I am referring to criticism of the Rating Agencies. If they still exist, you will remember from the time of the Alliance when we show the "country risk" and the mainstream media amplified their diagnosis every 30 minutes next to the price of the dollar and the wind chill that always came in the form of "wave "whether heat is cold. The "Country risk" was never presented as the qualification that makes a particular company, interested in advising clients with significant capital. Rather it is presented as a truth, that you can quantify when a country is "risky." Furthermore, this notion of "risk", almost like a slippery slope, is not confined to the area of \u200b\u200bthe disadvantages that an economy can bring to a particular investor, but on a fast chain of signifiers, covers social, political and legal. Thus, governments in the region are making steps that are "verified" by the counter that adds or subtracts points depending on how much we get closer to what the market space that has ceased to be a fair exchange to become that of the true, desired.
This X-ray and diagnosis are used by Foucault as a chapter of his unfinished story of truth. For any reader distracted, we can say that such history is not the failures and errors of human civilization that eventually end up being desasnados by enlightened souls who are above the mediocrity of the time in which they live. It is, rather, a story of "veridiction" that is, the ways in which each historical context the powers that be decided what was true and what that truth will eventually manifest space. This idea could Foucault emphasized, then, seeks not to say that the return policy is that now the truth will be told by the State or government but simply that the truth is a land dispute and that there is "One Truth" but multiple perspectives. Return policy Kirchner's hand then it should stop teaching: it is not one truth that appeared in the guidelines of the ruling party or we can describe politics in terms of true or false or morally , good or bad. For this is Pino Solanas and Carrio, candidates for the position of heavenly creatures life. Rather, the return of the political means to challenge the narrative space to the market and the economy in general, failed to show a "real truth" objective would be to "politics" but to point out that behind this apparent aseptic space that is "the market" are squatting interests, neither true nor false, just interested.
Continue reading this article ... 
0 comments:
Post a Comment