A CONTROVERSIAL INTERVIEW
Continuing his tour of Europe, aimed at strengthening trade ties with some countries on that continent, Chilean President Gabriel Boric was interviewed by BBC journalist Stephen Sackur about certain expressions made by the former Finance Minister of a previous Concertación government
“…] who stated that Chileans do not want to end capitalism, but rather to improve it “ii.
According to the media,
“The president affirmed that ‘I do not agree with Andrés Velasco, I believe that this is in dispute, in a permanent dispute’ and acknowledged that ‘a part of me’ wants to overthrow capitalism in Chile.
I firmly believe that capitalism is not the best way to solve our problems in society’, the president added “iii.
CRITICISMS OF THE INTERVIEW
Once his words were delivered to the media, in the aforementioned way, they rushed to reproduce the news. It was thus inevitable that a not inconsiderable group of ‘specialists’ would immediately take it upon themselves to comment on and draw conclusions about the content of the interview. One analyst noted, somewhat candidly:
“The President’s assertion that part of him wanted to overthrow capitalism, but that it was not easy without having an alternative, has generated an interesting debate that faces difficulties “iv.
The debate has not been ‘interesting’ but virulent: the president is not a person pleasing to the private individual representation of the dominant classes and class fractions; nor of those who make up their spurious representation. It is not for nothing that strong, almost insulting expressions are formulated against him. Thus, an economist who, after affirming that capitalism is applied in all the nations of the world and asking ‘which country in the world the president wished to emulate’, ends by saying:
“[…] I found it comical. He is like an eighth grader. It is surprising that the President, who is someone cultured, preoccupied with profundity and academic discussion, should come out with this idea like an old man, and who is unaware of the development of world history over the last 25 to 40 years, it is strange. But weird in the comic category “v.
In another ambit, the criticisms of a columnist in El Mercurio reveal his perplexity at the use of the phrase ‘part of me’, to argue by resorting to an exotic parallel that fails, in any case, to rise to the rank of analogy:
“Curious way of going out into the world to show the goodness of Chile for investment. As if the owner of a restaurant were inviting people into his place, but acknowledging that part of him wants to poison the diners “vi .
He ends with a reckless assertion:
“[…] capitalism, understood as a society that is driven by self-interest, that there is private property, that business plays a fundamental role in society, in which individual interests tend to harmonise with the public interest, seems to be proper to human nature “vii.
Magister dixit!
PRELIMINARY REFLECTION
One of the worst ways of conducting a debate is to assume that the concepts used by the participants are known to all. A crass mistake. And the fact that the discussion on the ‘overthrow’ of capitalism has taken place makes this clear. But what is most striking is that the participants, being ‘specialists’, do not make use of the rules that the Academy imposes as a prior question to any debate, but simply resort to insults, disqualifications and insults. It might be assumed that these criticisms, simply because they come from people who know the economy, would be backed up by strong foundations. This has not been the case. On the contrary. Instead, the theoretical indigence of all of them is surprising. This leads one to suppose that the intention behind such criticism is not to discuss possible errors or the misleading use of certain categories, but rather the malicious intention of damaging the opponent.
It is possible that the translation of the president’s expressions may not have been the most accurate, a doubt raised by a well-known journalist in one of his regular columns:
“It could have been a misunderstanding or a translation problem. But the ruling party stuck to this thesis “viii .
It is possible. But it also may not be. What is certain is that the debate is stirring, for it to reach, in the days in which this work ends, the paroxysm of defending the system with an intervention that seems more like a monument to stupidityix.
TRYING TO ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION
To talk about capitalism requires, beforehand, defining why it is understood as such. To help such polemicists, Daniel Matamala reminds them that the Diccionario de la Real Academia conceptualises this term as
“…] an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and a free market “x.
Capitalism is that. Firstly, a system, a statement that leads us – for a more complete analysis – to the general theory of systems; and, secondly, to the fact that it is considered, as its name indicates, a system based on the predominance of ‘capital’, a semiotic verbum that leads us to investigate its essence. And to explain to us what are the different kinds or types of ‘capitalism’ that are commonly spoken of. This leads us to investigate the different forms that capital adopts to realise itself as an economic subject, that is, to realise its essence through another process called ‘accumulation’. So, a more precise definition of capitalism could indicate that it is nothing but a system based on the existence of capital. This would help us to understand its various types. Not for any other reason, Matamala reminds us, to such an intemperate discussion, that capitalism, as a ‘general framework’, admits
“[…] all kinds of flavours and colours “xi.
Indeed, the capitalist system, established on the basis of the rule of capital, manifests itself in various forms. Not for any reason, but simply because its nature demands it. And it does so because capital is a value, an appreciation, an estimation or consideration; but a value that is inside our heads, a value that is valorised, that is constantly increasing and therefore requires a special process called ‘accumulation’.
CAPITAL, FORMS OF ACCUMULATION AND CYCLES
Accumulation’ can be carried out or realised in various forms, which, for academic convenience, are called ‘models’. So, to speak of a form of accumulation is to speak of a ‘model’ and, more directly, of an ‘economic model’.
In the history of economics, many models have been known, and so it has been possible to speak of ‘primary export model’, ‘import substitution model’, ‘inward-looking economic model’, ‘social market economy model’, ‘neo-liberalism’, ‘Washington Consensus’, and so on. And so on, many others have appeared in different periods.
Systems endure through the centuries, as a rule; however, the forms they take to persevere (or ‘models’) are constantly changing as circumstances dictate. They have a more limited duration. This is why we commonly speak of ‘cycles’ or ‘waves’, which can be long or short, because they can cover periods of 30 to 50 years or 5 to 15 years, respectively.
BANALITY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF DEBATE
It is striking that such a debate does not incorporate some of the above methodology, we repeat. Or at least use it as a reference. That would lend seriousness to the arguments (when there are any). But this is not the case. On the contrary: it perseveres in the serious superficiality exhibited by those who are not equipped with a minimum of theoretical instruments. We persevere in banality by allowing prejudice to override reason. To use the words of one of the debaters, acting ‘like an eighth grader’ who speaks before thinking or who reacts before understanding why he does so, which is the way to teach a whole population not to preoccupy themselves with knowledge because ‘others’ will do it for them. Even if it is all a lie.
We could thus be surprised by the completely irrational behaviour of parliamentarians who, not content with denying the dehumanised action of the dictatorship, accuse the non-existence of global warming which they do not hesitate to call
“new climate religion […]”xii
Or those who replace argument with rudeness as a normal way of generating ‘political debate’ xiii, as one MP does by referring to a father defending the honour of his dead daughter.
There is no more effort to try to understand each other than aggression. As if this were the best argument xiv. It seems useless to request them to try to understand what a person means when they express their will to change society, as their expressions can often be misinterpreted by giving them a scope they were never intended to have.
Many of these people quote Marx even though they have never read him. They do not even know that he was well acquainted with the different forms of accumulation; he had studied law, in whose texts there is abundant reference to the economic cycles studied in that discipline with specific names, specific to his speciality, under the name of ‘gendarme state’ or ‘interventionist state’.
They ignore the fact that, for it to make a point, Marx must not only be read but studied. His proposals are theses that need to be known and debated, not simply as one does with a trivial novel. It is not for nothing that he is studied with care in European universities, unlike what happens in a country like ours, invaded by prejudices and intellectually castrated, where he is considered anathema.
CONCLUSION
The forgetfulness in the use of these categories or their misuse has not been, on this occasion, the exclusive attribute of President Boric; His detractors have also done so, a behaviour all the more serious because it calls into question whether the debate, which his words provoked, has been conducted with a high sense of perspective, that is, to correct a mistake, a lack of knowledge or a mistranslation, or simply, with the malicious intention of using it as an arsenal of war, typical of the culture of a society that had a bitter military experience – from which it has still not recovered and in which thousands of Chileans were executed – and whose pernicious effects are still reproduced in the economy, in political language and in social relations. The aggressive language and behaviour of those who, paradoxically, criticise violence.
Banality, stupidity and superficiality in political discussion, as a fruitful legacy of the dictatorial period, must be completely eradicated from political discussion, as well as rudeness, disqualification and any behaviour that is notoriously aggressive. The media have a great responsibility to contribute to this important task.
i It should come as no surprise that the presidents, prime ministers and even monarchs of the various countries of the world have made it their mission to make trade agreements. The old idea that reserved for the highest authority tasks of greater importance has given way to the execution of more earthly missions such as the exercise of trade and business, obviously on behalf of the dominant sectors of their country.
ii Editor: “President Gabriel Boric affirms that part of him wants to end capitalism and that ‘it is not the best way to solve our problems in society’”, Radio Duna, 24 July 2023.
iii Editor: Id. (2).
iv Rivera Urrutia, Eugenio: “¿Qué entendemos por capitalismo?”, ‘El Mercurio’, 29 July 2023. Published in the ‘Letters’ section.
v Editorial staff: “Sebastián Edwards y declaraciones de Boric sobre el capitalismo: ‘Es como un niño de octavo básico’”, ‘El Líbero’, 26 July 2023. Bold in the original.
vii Covarrubias, Francisco José: “Derrocar el capitalismo”, ‘El Mercurio’, 29 July 2023.
vii Covarrubias, Francisco José: “Derrocar el capitalismo”, ‘El Mercurio’, 29 July 2023.
viii Matamala, Daniel: “Derrocar al capitalismo”, ‘La Tercera’, 30 July 2023. Bold in the original.
ix Romero, Bastián: “Capitalismo para comer”, ‘El Dínamo’, 03 August 2023.
x Matamala, Daniel: “Derrocar al capitalismo”, ‘La Tercera’, 30 July 2023.
xi Matamala, Daniel: “Derrocar al capitalismo”, ‘La Tercera, 30 July 2023.
xii Aparicio, Emilia and Fajardo, Marco: “Alarma por ‘terraplanismo climático’ de diputados de derecha que niegan la crisis global”, ‘El Mostrador’, 04 August 2023.
xiii Rivera, Luis: “‘Viejo de mierda, tiene ansias de ser político’: diputada Naveillán arremete contra Alejandro Barra”, ‘El Dínamo’, 04 August 2023.
xiv Meza, Cristián: “‘Comunistas levantadas de raja’: fuerte encontrón entre diputadas comunistas y republicanos”, ‘El Dínamo’, 02 August 2023.