 
|
|||||||
Becoming a Human Being in Solidarity:
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
"The system itself is a system that is driven by unlimited private greed for growth and, conversely, it produces greed. Psychologically it can be classified as an addiction, a pathological dependency linked to a narcissism without limits."
|
|||||||
|
Liberation from Traumatization, Greed, Fear and Stress in Theological Perspective Our question: The majority of the world’s population is fed up with globalized neoliberal capitalism. Millions die from its excesses yearly – at least 30 million people. The earth is also dying: trees, plants and animals, the air and the water. A minority, consisting of economists, political scientists and others, has even worked out clear alternatives. But they are not being implemented. Political institutions are blackmailed or co-opted and corrupted by the economic and financial elites and their helpers’ helpers. In any case, with very few exceptions, they do not represent the interests of the majorities of their populations but rather implement the interests of big capital owners through their legal and security apparatus. Democracy has become a farce. It has been said that hope lies in the social movements and this is true. In addition to the old trade unions, people are rising up in every corner of the world, are protesting, resisting and working on alternatives. They are even achieving partial victories. But the global, economically powerful, traditionally called the Bourgeoisie, always manage to find new ways to realize their interests. For example: It was possible to stop the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) through the social movements and with several governments, as well as the new liberalization programs of the WTO. But now the USA and the EU are forcing bilateral trade agreements upon the individual victims in the south, which are more devastating for the countries concerned than that which was planned but could not be accomplished multi-laterally. The only explanation for this is that an insufficient number of people support alternatives and resistance. The counter-forces “from below” are apparently still too weak. So this is the question: why don’t more people rise up and join those who are struggling in solidarity for human life and the earth? Isn’t the majority of humankind dramatically affected? Consternation and information about the causes of the catastrophe and the ways out are apparently not enough to lead to decisive action. There is an old discussion about the question of whether capitalism will collapse owing to the crises which it necessarily and systematically produces. Theoreticians such as Gramsci have long since observed that a strategy for changing structures in societies must take into account the subjective as well as the objective conditions. But then comes the great riddle: How is this supposed to happen? How do people become strong, individually and collectively, as subjects? But even this question is too general. It belongs to the essence of capitalism that it divides people. At the outset, to put it rather bluntly, it divides them into winners and losers. Concerning those who are “really down” and those “on top” this is evident. But it also divides those groups which we used to call the middle classes, again into winners and losers. And they are not only divided in their material existence. On the contrary, neoliberalism is also responsible for specific forms of psychological destruction in these various groups. One cannot simply speak of “people” when we want to concretely investigate what neoliberalism causes psychologically and how its results can be overcome, so that liberation for a common life in action and solidarity becomes possible. On the contrary, we must perceive the various human groups in the neoliberal context in all of its antagonisms and its specific material and psychological situation. This is the methodological heart of the essay: to try to understand from “below” the material, social, societal and psychological effects of neoliberalism, but at the same time to explore and test initiatives toward emancipation from them. This is meant in a specifically non-individual therapeutic sense. Naturally, it does make sense to give psychoanalytic treatment to individuals made psychologically ill by neoliberalism – if that is possible without healing society, at the same time. Our question is expressly politically intended, that is, with reference to societal-political life. For healing and liberation of individuals can only take place in a common perspective of common healing and liberation. Here we see a central problem for the future, which is how the middle class will choose its options. This is the choice of the middle class churches as well – at least in Europe. In the face of the intensified crisis of neoliberalism, will the middle classes again turn to authoritarian or fascist options, as in the time following 1929 in Germany or during the period of the dictatorships in Latin America, or, will it choose to join the underclass, to work to overcome the causes of the crisis, as has recently partially been the case in Argentina? A particular problem in this regard is the isolation of people which is inherent to neoliberal capitalism. Its basic ideology is that people are competing individuals and that the human state of nature is the struggle of all against one another (Thomas Hobbes). Our answer to this is that only working together will we human beings achieve a society with human dignity, which is directed toward a planet which can nourish future generations. I Towards Suicide or Life? I will spare you another list of shocking stories and statistics. We all know them. The essence of our worldwide experiences is the growing division within societies and in their relationships to one another as losers and winners and the destruction of the earth’s life-support systems. With reference to globalization we refuse to speak of a process, in which one can see positive and negative elements. We distinguish between the process of growing global interdependencies and challenges called for by global structures and patterns of irresponsible behavior on the one hand, and on the other, the neo-liberal project of global capitalism which subdues all of life in all of its dimensions to the unique irresponsible logic of capital accumulation, which is deadly and is doomed to suicide in the long run. This process has clearly recognizable actors and strategies. It has been ideologically prepared in the transnational network of neo-liberal thinkers, above all under the leadership of Friedrich August Von Hayek, and organized in the Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS). [1] With the support of think-tanks, reorganized university institutes, the buying out and founding of magazines, training of journalists, economists, politicians and church personalities they have developed and set into motion a successful strategy to win back the “hearts and minds” for their ideological hegemony which was lost in the catastrophe of classical liberalism in 1929. Politically, militarily and through its secret services the USA has since 1953 in Persia removed socially responsible governments and, with the support of local elites, installed national security dictators, which are notoriously well known in Latin America. It was the task of these military dictatorships to open up access to natural resources, production sites and markets for transnational capital and through the purchase of usually second-class western industrial products and prestige projects to propel their governments into debt, so that international creditors and finance institutions could steer and exploit the national economies through their heavily indebted public budgets. Economically this strategy was implemented through the liberalization and deregulation of international capital markets, which now, in addition to their free speculative casino games, could and still can drive up high interest rates and avoid taxes on capital gains with the help of tax oases. This is the way that the growing gap between private wealth and public poverty works, with the single goal of increasing capital returns at the cost of working people, public goods and services and nature. In terms of content neo-liberal global capitalism rests on the absolute character of private property and the contracts which, competing in the absolute market, are responsible for the transmission of monetary profit and the accumulation of capital. Von Hayek expresses this classically: A free society needs moral ground rules which can ultimately be summarized by saying that they are for the preservation of life: not the preservation of all life because it might be necessary to sacrifice individual life in order to save a greater number of other lives. For that reason the only real moral rules are those which lead us to the “life calculation”: private property and the contract. [2] Based on the lie that there is not enough to go around for everybody, this means that private property and the ability to negotiate contracts in the marketplace become the judges over life and death or, to put it more precisely, to determine human sacrifice. The essence of neo-liberalism is the abolition of the social functions of the state and its transformation into the security state for property and entrepreneurs. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke first stated this in anthropological terms in the 17th century. [3] They define the human being as an individual proprietor, who always strives for more wealth, power and respect and therefore is involved in the one-against-all struggle in the marketplace. The sole function of the state is the protection of property and contracts. Macpherson uses the term “possessive individualism” for this political-economical anthropology, which expresses especially well that the idea of being possessed is included here. Possession leads to being possessed. It is characteristic of neoliberalism that on the basis of the private ownership of the means of production, it not only sharpens the classical industrial capitalistic exploitation of workers, but even reverts to early capitalist forms of expropriation, and for this reason, it has justifiably been called predator-capitalism. [4] The great superfluous property using the exchange value for accumulation leads to the expropriation of the use-property, belonging to the majority of the people. By now more and more people worldwide are understanding these mechanisms and are organizing themselves for resistance and to work out alternatives. In summary, an expression of this new consciousness is the social movements which meet in the World Social Forum. Up to now they have limited power, are still a counter-culture and are not yet on the way to breaking the neoliberal hegemony and establishing a new leading culture. How can this movement be strengthened? In order to answer this question we turn to the biblical-liberation-theological perspective and method from below. Liberation cannot be achieved through “dialogue with the powerful” as the alibi strategy of most of the western churches or as other reformists suggest. Liberation is built on the liberation and organizing of the “victims” who can also be joined in solidarity by members of other classes. This has been demonstrated in many publications of DEI and has been summarized by Enrique Dussel. [5] Psychologically we are working on this perspective “from below” with impulses from relational psychology in contrast to individualistic, drive-theoretical methods. We are making use of the object-relation theory as developed by Fairbairn, Winnicott and others and as presented by Greenberg/Mitchell in a historical overview, [6] as well as especially of the trauma psychology. [7] We also draw on Erich Fromm. However, with regard to the object-relation-theory we have chosen a different language. Above all, this means that from infancy on, the person is not to be understood as an isolated individual, but rather as a relational being – starting with the mother-baby relationship. To refer to the mother as an object would mean using the language of Descartes, which takes as its point of departure the dualistic splitting of the (rational) subject and material object and, in so doing, reflects the capitalistic idea of the isolated, competing individual. For that reason to describe the relationships we prefer to use the language of Levinas and say that the “self” emerges in relation to “others”, first of all to the reference persons. However, in the course of the child’s further development the adult partner does not consist of only one person. On the contrary, the society, societal groups, political and economic institutions are partners and mobilize early childhood experiences and psychological patterns of the infant, which have been formed through the experiences with specific persons. We call this first point of view primary intersubjectivity. Primary intersubjectivity means the ultimate relatedness of the emerging psychological subject. From Winnicott we have this ingenious statement: “There is no such thing as a baby”. We cannot examine a baby without starting from the relational unity of baby-mother. We can speak of the birth of subjectivity emerging from the intersubjectivity; the structural building of the developing personality points to the basic, real experiences in the intersubjective space and the internalizing of them. The investigation of the micro-structural intersubjective-psychologically interconnected experiences of the small child has removed the basis for psychologistical atomism; the basic underlying character of intersubjective relatedness is still decisive in the life of the adult as a participant in social structures and as one affected by them. The adult individual also remains dependent on the constructive inner and real basic relationships to the significant contexts of his/her existence; dependent on the school, on one’s own family, friends and colleagues as well as on religious and political loyalties. A satisfactory social integration makes possible an affirmation of the entire personality, which paradoxically, only then makes possible feelings of autonomy. The basic social dependency of the individual can best be clarified terminologically as the basic structure or matrix of social relatedness. This makes it easier to analytically understand the mutation of this relationship-structure caused by social-economic relational changes. A benign, basic matrix of social relatedness allows for a feeling of continuity and security, it provides the presupposition for individual influence and control over important areas of one’s existence and planning. It contributes substantially to the support of good inner relations to the various sorts of partners and their strong influence on the bad relations to other partners, while on the other hand, a malignant matrix of social relatedness tends to reactivate bad inner relationships to others and thereby contains a pathogenic psychological potential. In this manner, biographical-individual-psychological dimensions, on the one hand, and the socio-psychological on the other, are connected and allow us to clearly recognize and describe their mutual interaction. Starting from this very generally described basis, we now turn to the particular analyses. II. Losers, Winners and the Middle Classes under Neo-liberalism 1. What Do the Losers Suffer? The examples of Argentina and Germany enable us to see the socio-economic exploitation, expropriation, exclusion, and impoverishment, as well as the deprivation of political power for a growing number of people. On this basis, the traumatic effects for losers become visible. The undermining of the relatively benign matrix of social relatedness of the European welfare state, and to a lesser extent that of Argentina, as well as the sharply increased destruction of indigenous communities, affects all individuals as members of those societies and not just the individual victims with their accompanying symptoms; for the perception of the changes of the basic social matrix, their hostile orientation to their needs for individual security, stabilizing and support has a troubling and frightening effect on particularly the losers. The relational approach includes a constitutive trauma-ethical implication. Fairbairn understands the building of psychological structures as a process initiated by traumatization during infancy. For him the decisive phase is the “schizoid position”. It is about the early childhood experience of loving acceptance and respect, on which the child depends; it concerns the experience of an effective reciprocity – the child experiences not only the mother’s love, but also that its own love is accepted and treasured by her. The unavoidable and widely differing experiences of the absence of love and rejection of his own love are highly threatening for the child; it feels ultimately threatened by the loss of self and psychological destruction. The defensive mechanisms used to ward off this threat are: (1) splitting the threatening partner, the “other”, into his/her good and evil parts and (2) the internalization of his/her evil part. For Fairbairn these two mechanisms constitute the foundations of the construction of the self. This internalization serves primarily to gain control over the threatening reference person – the evil from the other is taken up into its own interior, so the relationship to the real other is positively maintained but at the cost of now being burdened by the threatening “other” within. The splitting and the internalization of the early reference persons result in the splitting of the self into the respective partial “others”. The essential task of structure building is for Fairbairn the defense against the hostile-aggressive interior “others”; psycho-neurotic disorders indicate as primary cause the near destruction of the defensive balance and the traumatic entrance of the destructive-threatening other. [8] For Fairbairn an important aspect of the investigation of traumatic causal relationships is a productive systematic consideration: it concerns the relationship of trauma victims to the perpetrators, the bad or guilty feelings on the part of the victims. With the concept of moral defense Fairbairn opens up a perspective for understanding the real and internalized relationship of the individual to those destructive others and relationships; in contrast to the super-ego concept, which is centered on the internalization of the social authority relationships, Fairbairn clearly sees the concept of moral defense, basically as moral reversal: with the development of the ability to make moral generalizations, the evil persecuting powers of earlier times are transfigured into powerful idealized authorities. The unconscious reason for this reversal is that it means more for the child to be bad in a world ruled by good others, that is, that is possible for him/her to achieve good, rather than to be good in a world dominated by strong, evil authorities with the resulting strong fears of threats and isolation and feelings of despair. In our judgment the concept of moral defense, or reversal, offers a basic psycho-dynamic addition to the concept of orientation trauma, which through confusion strengthens the relations of the victims to the perpetrators – as Fischer and Riedesser have described it. [9] This leads to an affective-cognitive relationship to the thinking patterns of the perpetrators and adds to the severe depressive mood and to self blame, under which the victims suffer, among other factors. In these early relational and internalization cases, which are informed by trauma theory, psychological constellations and dispositions are developed, which in the context of later sociogenic burdening experiences are reactivated and can be strengthened in a malignant way. In strategic terms this helps to explain why victims do not spontaneously join the resistance and the struggle for alternatives when powerful systems and actors have destructive socio-economic and political effects on themselves and others. 2. The Psychodynamic of the Middle Classes The same trauma-psychological constellation in the middle classes leads to even more dangerous socio-psychological and political consequences. The current phase of capitalism has now moved beyond the destruction and traumatization of the lower classes to the destruction of the middle classes. This can easily be demonstrated by the examples of Argentina, Germany/Western Europe. Here, I will use the comprehensive concept “middle classes” although in the detailed analysis with Pierre Bourdieu we differentiate between the various milieus within the middle classes as well as in the other classes. The middle class milieus are characterized by an upward mobility mentality and are strongly influenced by the individualism of the system. They also lack the historical, collective experience of solidarity and of the common struggle of the working class. Both of these factors make them particularly helpless at this moment in which neoliberal capitalism is dividing a minority of winners from the majority of losers. The clearly recognizable feeling of the middle classes is fear of the sudden fall, the crash. In this situation the schizoid patterns of early childhood defense mechanisms, as described above, is mobilized. In the case of the middle classes this has three typical consequences: • They reproduce the “moral reversal” that “those at the top” cannot be the sinister cause of this threatening development. This produces an illusionary consciousness. For every analysis shows that it is big capital and the corrupted political elites who are responsible for the socio-economic problems affecting themselves and the underclasses. • So, in accordance with the psychodynamic of the middle classes, the cause of the problems must lie elsewhere. Either they direct their aggression, which should apply to those responsible, against themselves, which results in depression, a rapidly growing phenomenon in the middle classes, or against those below them, who are still weaker, for example against foreigners, who ostensibly threaten their jobs, or against criminals. Consequently the middle classes call for the security state against those scapegoats – right in line with neoliberal thinking. • The economic and political elites deliberately make use of this psychosocial mechanism. The case of Germany shows since Bismarck toward the end of the nineteenth century how purposefully the “employee” wage dependents (white collar), and especially the civil servants, were enticed by modest privileges and it was suggested to them that they were better than the proletariat, with the clear intention of preventing them from joining the proletariat and demanding together their rights against the exploiting upper class. “To separate those whose alliance could damage them was always a basic goal of those in power.” [10] 3. What Drives the Winners? The classical expression for this is greed. Desires are called epithymia in Greek, while greed is pleonexia. In the early church these were considered to be deadly sins. Even Aristotle reflected brilliantly on the observation that the purpose of the natural economy is to satisfy the limited needs of life in household communities. It is a matter of use-property. As soon as money enters the scene, money which can be accumulated and hoarded on the basis of the exchange value of property, since it doesn’t lose its value, this results in greed, which leads the rich to the illusion that one could gather money and riches without limits and thereby purchase endless, eternal life. So greed for money is a sign for the inability to relate to one’s own finite character and mortality. But because through egoistic private accumulation of social wealth they destroy the community of the polis, on which they are dependent, the greedy rich destroy not only the community, but themselves as well. “Murder is suicide”, as Franz Hinkelammert has often said. This is valid, not only for the globalized world. Jesus added to this analysis that trusting in “gathering treasures” has a religious quality. This idol worship of the accumulation of wealth he called Mammon. That which was considered anathema in ancient societies and was therefore politically rejected and legally prevented, has become the foundation of economic and social systems under capitalism. Supposedly egoistic economic activity creates general prosperity, the “wealth of nations” (Bentham, Smith). That is to say, that greed becomes the positive propelling element of the entire system. For this reason, it would be short-sighted to view this question solely as an individual ethical problem of capitalists. No, the system itself is a system that is driven by unlimited private greed for growth and, conversely, it produces greed. Psychologically it can be classified as an addiction, a pathological dependency linked to a narcissism without limits. Empirical studies on so-called gambling research have shown that the system drives its actors on like a wheel for guinea pigs or rats, who always need more because otherwise they will sink in the competitive struggle, whereas the whole thing is an exhausting race in a neutral gear. The psychosocial researcher Peter Jüngst [11] has put forth the thesis that the USA, viewed psychologically, is the driving power in increasingly rapid hyper-capitalism because (1) Especially people with weak communal bonds immigrated to the “New World” and they could continue to conquer ever new spaces (“going west”). He calls this philobatie. (2) After the physical boundaries had been reached, this drive was transferred especially to pumping up the financial bubble, because the capital based retirement systems (in contrast to those structured on the basis of solidarity) produce such gigantic pension funds that these exert pressure to then further expand through speculation. In his book “The God Complex” H.E. Richter also proposes the thesis that following the break-off from the transcendental regulation of society in medieval Europe, people themselves aspired to assume this role of God. [12] The self thinks that it must constitute itself and does this through a megalomaniac-like acquisition of power through science, technology and capital power. The ego-society, resulting from this drive, is exclusively oriented to masculine, conquering, violent mathematically rational powers in the human being and represses the compassion, sympathy for others or feeling relationships. It represses women and “natural peoples” – as they are called in racist language – and, above all, rapes mother earth. Those whose political strategy counts on a “dialogue with the powerful” in order to change or regulate the capitalist system, should, in the light of the interaction of the system and addiction remember Jesus’ words: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God”. This does not mean that some rich people can never repent as the story of the chief tax-collector, Zacchaeus, shows (cf. Luke 19:1ff.). III. Becoming Human Beings in Solidarity in a Different World - But How? 1. Healing and Liberation in Order to Become Human Beings in Solidarity Our considerations are based on the results of recent research in brain function (Damasio) [13] and relational psychology (H.E. Richter [14]), which both from their perspective demonstrate that the original founder of western capitalism’s basic scholarly assumptions, René Descartes, was empirically wrong. Brain research shows this with the interaction between thinking, body, feeling and environment, as does relational psychology between the self and its relating partner. On this basis Richter develops in his book a way from the “I-society” toward a “we-society”. ‘Essential to this is the acceptance of one's own given limits and one’s own death, so that one must not be continuously driven to strive for invulnerability and superior strength. In addition, we proceed on the basis of years of work in Latin America on the question of the subject, coordinated by DEI. [15] What we have already seen in relational psychology and in brain studies, namely, that human beings are not isolated individuals but rather, relational beings, is confirmed in this analysis of the ethical and political concept of the subject. Intersubjectivity is primary. But, in addition, the intercultural, inter-religious character of this relational structure is emphasized – especially important in the context of the global world. In accordance with the older insights of Latin American Liberation Theology, and recognizing that the subject is not possible as a theory (on the Cartesian basis), but rather only as “orthopraxis”, as acting along side of and with those who are crying out. Here, becoming a subject is basically and constantly referred back to going down the same road, with constant self-criticism, so that all can come along and so that in the alternative movement hierarchical structures do not emerge. With this approach it is not a question of power but of the transfiguration of power itself (cf. the Zapatista approach). This approach to overcoming the violent ego can be reinforced through the foundational biblical discoveries regarding the question of the origins of the humanness of the human being. Walter Wink has worked this out superbly in a new book. [16] During the Babylonian Exile, in the midst of the Babylonian Empire and in critical discussion with it in the sixth century before Christ, priestly circles close to the prophet Ezekiel were pressing toward revolutionary insights of man and woman as the image of God. “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1: 26-31). In the context of the ancient oriental world this entire text is revolutionary. • In the Babylonian Enuma Elish myth human beings were created out of the blood of a murdered God, in order to serve the gods – and especially to work for them – because the gods were tired of working. [17] In the biblical text human beings are blessed and honored as man and woman to become God’s co-workers. Apart from this, in old oriental societies only the king is the image of God. In this case, to speak of the image of God meant an ideological legitimization of authority, and therefore of the right to not be obliged to work, but rather to let others to work for them. In Gen, 1:26-31 all human beings are created in the image of God – to freely and responsibly work together with God. In this manner, this text, written by deportees in the Babylonian captivity, is an eminently subversive text, directed against imperial powers and forced labor through slavery. • From the outset, human beings are created as male and female in the image of God, that is, as relational beings – both with regard to their mutual relationship and in their relationship with God. Indeed, the words of the text show beyond doubt God himself/herself as relational and explicitly with male and female poles. • On this basis follows the surprising insight that only God is fully human. To be human as the imago dei, as the image of God, means becoming human in the sense of being oriented to God as the genuine human. Insofar as God becomes incarnate in us, we will become human. “Jesus embodied God in his own person in order to show us how we can embody God”. [18] This is again confirmed in the book of Daniel in the famous vision in chapter 7. The world’s kingdoms appear as carnivorous animals, which are confronted and overcome by the Kingdom of God with a human face. The Kingdom of God should be translated, “God’s dominion-free human order”. As is known, this is Jesus’ central message against the repressive structures: • The patriarchal order and the suppression of women and children; • Economic exploitation and the impoverishment of entire classes of human beings; • The family as the main instrument, by which children are socialized into submissive roles and values; • Hierarchical power structures, which favor the strong and disadvantage the weak; • The reversal of justice by those who, in so doing, defend privileges; • Racist arrogance and ethnocentrism; • The entire sacrifice system with its beliefs in holy violence. Accordingly, in Matthew 25:31-46 in the parable of the epiphany of Jesus in the poor, all men and women and all peoples shall be judged by whether they helped “the least” of these brothers and sisters to satisfy their basic needs: hunger, thirst, clothing, shelter, health and freedom. Jesus’ entire life, words, actions, as well as his life-sacrifice were to this one end: to liberate the humanity in human beings and to help him/her to a breakthrough. With the words of the psychologist Klaus Ottomeyer [19] we summarize this process of becoming human: to work in cooperation, to love one another in reciprocity and to struggle for peace based on justice with tenacity. This humanizing of human beings in the emancipating struggle beyond repeated suppression of others is expressed by the psychologist Lifton [20] with the term “human species mentality”. It points to the necessity of the cognitive-affective integration of all humankind into the individual psyche, so that it orients itself toward the life of all. Today it stands especially in opposition to and resistance against the exclusion mentality, which destroys the social fabric of society through neoliberal policies and an economy under the dictatorship of shareholder value and big finance investment, and against the extermination mentality, which is behind the imperial concept of the feasibility of nuclear war. And we also cite Erich Fromm, who contrasts the “always wanting to have more” (greed for property and power) and the life of being, in which the structures of sharing are joined with authentic ability to experience and to relate. [21] This is the heart of the matter: the relationship between becoming human and becoming a society in solidarity. 2. Alternative Economy and Policy: Vision, Strategy and Practice There are also resources in ancient traditions of peoples for the vision of alternative economies and policies. In ancient Israel, in the 8th century BC, directly following the extension of property-interest and money markets, there immediately arose resistance efforts. [22] Proceeding from Greece, this new economic form had begun to divide all ancient Near East societies into those who couldn't pay their debts with newly added interest, and therefore lost their lands, which had served as collateral and had become debt-slaves, on the one hand, and on the other, those who, moved by the same mechanism, accumulated large landed properties and had their debt-slaves work on them. The prophets rose up against this development with ominous criticism. In cooperation with peasant movements, they struggled for legal reforms. Finally, under the Hellenistic-Roman world empires strong violent and non-violent resistance was developed and Jesus added to all of this the subversive cell-building of an alternative economy. Behind this stood the vision of an economy of sufficiency for the life of all, as it was told in the manna story (Exodus 16). Those who gathered much didn't have too much, but enough. And whoever gathered less didn't have too little, but rather, enough for living. The Zapatistas call this the “society, in which all have a place in harmony with nature”. In the Ecumenical Movement we call that “economy at the service of life”. David Korten has convincingly drawn these ancient visions and practices into today’s scholarly theory-building. [23] His central thesis is: the economy, which was “dis-embedded” of all social and ecological contexts (Karl Polanyi), is following the paradigm of cartesian and newtonian mechanics. According to them, the economy functions in a money-multiplying machine for property owners. An economy which takes into consideration the life-contexts, must on the contrary, work in accordance with the paradigm of living relational organisms. In this paradigm it becomes clear that the single cell, which continues to grow egoistically, with no regard for the entire organism, is a cancer cell. It grows and multiplies until it has killed the host organism – and then dies itself. Here, murder is precisely suicide – exactly that which absolute capitalism does with all societies, and ultimately with the earth, if it is not stopped. In contrast to this model, the single cell functions so that in great variety and in interaction with their environment, they make decisions, so that the entire organism – and they themselves – have the greatest chances for survival. With this paradigm a healthy economy is built, based on local-regional, varied, independent units, which then join networks with larger units – just as in life itself. Viewed economically, this model is already growing on a worldwide scale with initiatives for a “social economy in solidarity” (Marcos Arruda [24]). It works cooperatively instead of in competition with one another, decentralized instead of centralized. It transcends the false alternative between monopoly-directed private capitalism and centralist state-capitalism, also called real socialism. It strives for the social appropriation of the earth’s resources and common work together. [25] This requires a double strategy: [26] “Starve the cancer – Nurture life” I. Starving the Capitalist Cancer (1) Demythologize the neoliberal disorientation ideology (2) A clear “no” with resistance and refusal to cooperate These formulations are self-evident. A few short comments to: II. Nurturing Life (1) Alternatives in local-regional areas, which transcend capitalism The areas of action are, above all, (1) Local Exchange and Trading Systems (LETS); (2) Cooperative banking; (3) Decentralized production of alternative energies (sun, wind, water, biomass); and (4) Local cooperative production, marketing and consumption. [27] But plants, self-administered by the workers and their networks are also a part of it. (2) Struggles for the social appropriation of stolen resources on all levels in post-capitalist perspective. The alternative economy in the context of the real power situation cannot simply be generally “introduced”. The people who are affected must join together with those in solidarity and organize alliances themselves, in order to approach concrete goals and to integrate them into an overall perspective of societal appropriation. Some examples are: the struggle for land, for public goods and services (such as water), for fair taxation, etc. The protagonists, to which people can relate in order to become subjects in solidarity are, especially, trade unions, social movements and churches in their diverse social forms. In these two concrete areas (II, 1 and 2), at the same time, lie the great potential for healing and liberating in the direction of becoming human beings in solidarity for those who have been traumatized, frightened and addicted. In this destructive situation, healing is only possible when those who are being healed, at the same time, know the real possibility of an alternative praxis and engage in it. Both, the local-regional social economy and the alliance-building for the re-appropriation of the earth’s resources and the fruits of common work are centrally based on the creation of concrete groups and movements for common work and struggle. Groups and movements are the primary forms to regain a life in relationships – against the capitalist ego-society, which drives individuals into a war of all against each other. (3) A new “great story” with more and more stories of hope By now, there are many stories of healing, liberation and conversion and of practical alternatives. To tell them in new and creative forms must and will overcome the disorienting capitalist media. The crisis of capitalism is so great – although the possible spreading of its cancer in China, among other places, might extend its life somewhat – that the time has come when the great cultural shift may be possible and the hegemony of neoliberalism can be broken. This can be seen in the growth of the social movements (above all in the framework of the World Social Forum) and that in all religions (including indigenous communities) basic rethinking processes are underway. [28] To be sure, the faith communities are divided into antagonistic groups. On the one hand, fundamentalist powers are active, which support neo-liberalism and imperialism, as we know them, especially in the USA. On the other hand, we have theology of liberation powers, which release spiritual resources of healing and liberation and who cooperate with the social movements. And in the middle there are many undecided powers, who avoid the conflict with power and wealth. Under these circumstances, to win over as many churches and faith communities as possible for a clear “no” to neoliberalism and a concrete work and struggle for alternatives is central for the future of humankind for two reasons: (1) Neoliberal capitalism itself is a fundamentalist religion and must be defeated centrally also at the spiritual level; (2) It will be decisive, how the middle classes decide. If they continue to hang on to the illusionary coalition with the elites, the majority will go under. If they should find the way to alliances in solidarity with the exploited and marginalized, then this united power will be central for the societal appropriation of the resources and new participatory political forms. The example of Argentina shows that this is possible – at least in promising initiatives. The World Council of Churches, as well as the Lutheran World Federation and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches have been involved since 1997/98 in the quest of an alternative to neoliberal globalization. Their General Assemblies have produced astounding resolutions. Not only is a “different world possible”, a human being who has rediscovered and renewed solidarity, is also possible. Ulrich Duchrow is Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Heidelberg. His books include Property for People, Not for Profit: Alternatives to the Global Tyranny of Capital and Alternatives to Global Capitalism: Drawn from Biblical History, Designed for Political Action.
Endnotes |
|||||||
