The business elites are pressing and holding at high levels because they believe the media campaign that the government has been increasing "participation" in the national economy, trying to control and regulate certain prices and its intention of increasing tax burdens, tax it, the "majors." This posed a dilemma is crucial for the country: o the system decides to "take the bull by the horns" and continues with that uncertainty or fear of losing control of his administration and do not meet minimum social and economic program proposed in the campaign.
On the other hand, where do you get the resources to meet public transportation subsidies and the liquefied gas and the necessary funds to meet the demands of public employees? It is good to ask at this stage of government policy agenda, "whether it will work to serve the working classes, or will be a source of accumulation of a corrupt bureaucracy and a prestanombres bourgeoisie? How using subsidies and tax increases assumptions? So that government resources will increase the benefit of the poor, or to the people's money to be used in financing - with rates of subsidy and other known resources - great businesses that are already very rich, not excluding foreign capitalists, more or less disguised?
Good intentions or the same government programs go awry when not set a clear definition on this fundamental point. Companies as important as public transport or the range of grain importers, become sources of accumulation for a corrupt bureaucracy and greedy bourgeoisie. Become victims (We've seen lately making a demonstration march to the presidential palace to demand "a discount" or an abolition of payment of fines imposed by traffic obituaries traffic cops to reckless motorists) and always get "happy" to "demonstrate that they operate with losses "in each of the transport units. Since the government substantially increased their subsidies to buses and minibuses and still not reached to fill the bottomless pit.
From all this it appears that the State administers the nation's wealth, but not for the benefit of the Salvadoran people - people understood the workers, peasants, students, employees, intellectuals - but for the benefit of those who have everything and, more particularly, of large transnational corporations. Liquefied gas monopolies and petroleum products are just a small example of this. Then the good intentions, the healthy purposes cancel themselves. Are at the service of capital, the Mafia. Of all the people and national and international companies used to serve the larger spoon.
There is thus the question. The obstacles are getting older: the main opposed to the development and happiness of the country lies in the unequal distribution of income, resulting from a very high level of unemployment and underemployment. We would say in this same line that the alleged state investments are only a defense to the same domestic private capital. It would seem, logically, the number one goal of government economic policy should be to eliminate the "main obstacle in the development and happiness of the nation." And that it should contribute as a key lever, the management of the "majors" and multinationals. In other words, they should be supportive and return at least while receiving the benefit of the majority population. As you are thinking, is a daydream or a mere utopia.
In fact, there is no "government of change", true nationalism and democracy, the only valid would certainly be a "revolutionary nationalism." Bourgeois nationalism refuses to itself, because the bourgeoisie is not "national", but is a world class, global system, in which the interests of the bourgeoisie of underdeveloped countries are subordinated to the interests of imperialist capital. To the extent that companies under state control (what will be in El Salvador that cause itching of the oligarchy and the figureheads of the business elites) are at the service of the bourgeoisie, are putting like it or not, the service of imperialism. Any other idea is utopian and is located outside of reality. Revolutionary nationalism, putting the economy at the service of the oppressed, is an open road to socialism, and only true and consistent to the extent that - as the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela - is socialism at its horizon. The measures taken to redistribute income, that is, to empower the exploited classes, correspondingly weaken the bourgeoisie and goals are steps toward socialism.
El Salvador does not aspire to much and it seems clear that it will take such action, in a firm and consistent, especially when it gets so hard to show the benefits of state involvement is for the bourgeoisie, supposedly "national". The ideology of change, the proposed unity and inclusion, there are more than just bragging advertising. Does it imply a change? Certainly not. Perhaps a change to a bureaucracy that was running out of economic base, to the extent that big business has been strengthened and extended its tentacles into all economic and social areas of the state. And, paradoxically, to that extent, government bureaucracy has been lost or are losing their supporting foundations, or to put it in rough terms, lost his jobs, their "bones."
Finally, the current government is defined as well as a transition regime between bourgeois development has been prevalent, and the alleged "change." That's raised, too, the level of bureaucratic cliques acting within it. And that explains the contradictory, vague and indefinite that it is their policy. Only independent of the eternal exploited, the "nothing", can carry things for the channel is already essential to continue and that even in the "government of change" is recognized when it is said that the "unjust distribution of income is one of the main obstacles to national development. "
On the other hand, where do you get the resources to meet public transportation subsidies and the liquefied gas and the necessary funds to meet the demands of public employees? It is good to ask at this stage of government policy agenda, "whether it will work to serve the working classes, or will be a source of accumulation of a corrupt bureaucracy and a prestanombres bourgeoisie? How using subsidies and tax increases assumptions? So that government resources will increase the benefit of the poor, or to the people's money to be used in financing - with rates of subsidy and other known resources - great businesses that are already very rich, not excluding foreign capitalists, more or less disguised?
Good intentions or the same government programs go awry when not set a clear definition on this fundamental point. Companies as important as public transport or the range of grain importers, become sources of accumulation for a corrupt bureaucracy and greedy bourgeoisie. Become victims (We've seen lately making a demonstration march to the presidential palace to demand "a discount" or an abolition of payment of fines imposed by traffic obituaries traffic cops to reckless motorists) and always get "happy" to "demonstrate that they operate with losses "in each of the transport units. Since the government substantially increased their subsidies to buses and minibuses and still not reached to fill the bottomless pit.
From all this it appears that the State administers the nation's wealth, but not for the benefit of the Salvadoran people - people understood the workers, peasants, students, employees, intellectuals - but for the benefit of those who have everything and, more particularly, of large transnational corporations. Liquefied gas monopolies and petroleum products are just a small example of this. Then the good intentions, the healthy purposes cancel themselves. Are at the service of capital, the Mafia. Of all the people and national and international companies used to serve the larger spoon.
There is thus the question. The obstacles are getting older: the main opposed to the development and happiness of the country lies in the unequal distribution of income, resulting from a very high level of unemployment and underemployment. We would say in this same line that the alleged state investments are only a defense to the same domestic private capital. It would seem, logically, the number one goal of government economic policy should be to eliminate the "main obstacle in the development and happiness of the nation." And that it should contribute as a key lever, the management of the "majors" and multinationals. In other words, they should be supportive and return at least while receiving the benefit of the majority population. As you are thinking, is a daydream or a mere utopia.
In fact, there is no "government of change", true nationalism and democracy, the only valid would certainly be a "revolutionary nationalism." Bourgeois nationalism refuses to itself, because the bourgeoisie is not "national", but is a world class, global system, in which the interests of the bourgeoisie of underdeveloped countries are subordinated to the interests of imperialist capital. To the extent that companies under state control (what will be in El Salvador that cause itching of the oligarchy and the figureheads of the business elites) are at the service of the bourgeoisie, are putting like it or not, the service of imperialism. Any other idea is utopian and is located outside of reality. Revolutionary nationalism, putting the economy at the service of the oppressed, is an open road to socialism, and only true and consistent to the extent that - as the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela - is socialism at its horizon. The measures taken to redistribute income, that is, to empower the exploited classes, correspondingly weaken the bourgeoisie and goals are steps toward socialism.
El Salvador does not aspire to much and it seems clear that it will take such action, in a firm and consistent, especially when it gets so hard to show the benefits of state involvement is for the bourgeoisie, supposedly "national". The ideology of change, the proposed unity and inclusion, there are more than just bragging advertising. Does it imply a change? Certainly not. Perhaps a change to a bureaucracy that was running out of economic base, to the extent that big business has been strengthened and extended its tentacles into all economic and social areas of the state. And, paradoxically, to that extent, government bureaucracy has been lost or are losing their supporting foundations, or to put it in rough terms, lost his jobs, their "bones."
Finally, the current government is defined as well as a transition regime between bourgeois development has been prevalent, and the alleged "change." That's raised, too, the level of bureaucratic cliques acting within it. And that explains the contradictory, vague and indefinite that it is their policy. Only independent of the eternal exploited, the "nothing", can carry things for the channel is already essential to continue and that even in the "government of change" is recognized when it is said that the "unjust distribution of income is one of the main obstacles to national development. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment