16th Annual International Conference on Philosophy, Athens
Free pdf:
The New Scholastic and the Critique of Environmental Reason
António dos Santos Queirós. Reviwer of Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts. Member of Editorial Board of the Athens Journal of Philosophy
Athens Institute for Education and Research ATINER is an international association of academics and researchers based in Athens. ATINER has 2549 members from 117 countries
Free pdf:
PHI2021-XXXX Athens, 6 April 2022 ISSN: 2529-167X
António dos Santos Queirós, Researcher, Center of Philosophy, University of Lisbon, Portugal
ABSTRACT
Keywords: political philosophy, alienation, single thought, new scholastic, human rights
Introduction
Fallacies and Alienation - Political Philosophy
The social media, and
the social networks, in the time of the society of information and knowledge,
they are the tools that can create a global alienation, and their favorite
resource is the fallacy.
Fallacy 1: The media
does not show reality, rather, by taking a part of this reality, they selects
what we will never see, blocked that is our gaze, by the images chosen by the
newsrooms, which were in turn recruited by the shareholders or by the minister
of guardianship.[1]
At some point, the media stops
talking about the problem, and it is like it is extinguishing, or it ceased to
exist.
The newsrooms of the media of
small dependent countries do not produce contents, so they are subject to half
a dozen gigantic international monopolies.
It resist, the footprint
journalists and media that they was investigating the political and social
context, that they was using checking the sources, and they was promoting the
contradictory_ which is not synonymous with pluralism. But a trail... which
tends to disappear, destroyed by the competition and capital concentration in
this sector.
Pluralism is the substitute of the
contradictory, at the same mode as plastic is a substitute for noble materials,
it gives us the illusion of the free debate of different ideas, but in reality,
it is almost always a choir, modeled with different shades of the same
polyphony.
This is the metaphor of single
thought, wrapped in the old role of pluralism, which isolates and protects it
from contradictory and critical thinking.
In politics, the exact same is
happening, especially with the bipartisan system, of two dominant parties that
form the so-called arc of power; in fact, it is not an arch, but a two-legged
beast, which walks in fact, side by side and always towards the same destiny:
economic and financial war, military war, leaving behind a path of
environmental crisis and an ethical emptiness.
Fallacy 2: The same phenomenon
develops on social networks: where powerful propaganda organizations, the most
powerful states and multinationals, the completely invisible
counter-information services are covered by the multitude of billions of
"free" users and act at will, protected by the absence of legal or
moral norms and regulations, "liberated" from any national or
international legal framework.
The clearest example of this
apparent freedom of expression is the control of 56% of the capital of the
Facebook conglomerate, Instagram, WhatsApp, by a single shareholder, Mark
Zuckerberg, who gathers 25.000 controllers to decide imperially what is the
good and bad information accessible to 3 billion users.
And he reimburses the advice of
wise men to apply the façade of democracy over the monster.
Fallacy 3: TV, radio,
and press, (and multimedia in general) do not align your grids, programs, news,
and products, according to the taste of the public, they create the taste of
the public. And, after that creation, they choose the dominant programs by the
number of viewers, listeners and readers, the so-called “share”.
In fact, the public is
neither heard nor found for anything and are the choices of newsrooms, shareholders,
ministers... who they creates the products that, consumed, generate the taste,
so that these choices shape a cultural taste, imposing on him the vision of the
world and the ethical and aesthetic values from the leading ideology.
But most often, the
products and contents offered are simply futile, unaesthetic, amorphous, and
pseudoscientific, that is, alienating.
Consequently, cinema as one seventh art no longer has space on the market and survives on its margins.
Political Philosophy. Economy or Political Economy?
The Rectification of Names, it was
a philosophical movement promote by the philosophy of Confucius (China, 551
BC-479 BF), as an imperative to build a conceptual language that representative
of the flux of “the truth of things”, above all during the troubled times and
the civilization crises. (Confucius,2009)
Now, we live again, in a trouble
and dangerous world. Never in the History of mankind a financial and economic
system had so powerful to control the state and the conscience of the people,
monopolizing and controlling the social media and social networks: the
possibility of global alienation is their consequence.
First, is necessaire analyses the
concept of “economy” that replaced the historical concept of “political
economy”.
The single thought separates
economy and politic, to drive economy to own political aims, disregard the
heritage of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marx, or Keynes.
Banks drive its core business from
the credit support of industry, commerce and services, and families to the
creation of derivative products, investing in public-private partnerships and
sovereign debt speculation.
World Debt-to-GDP ratio rose to
318% in 2018 (Bloomberg), a record of $247 trillion of USA, what mean that 2/3
of the value of derivative products is speculative. That dysfunction of real
economy and the excess of offer, will be one of fundamental causes of new
financial and economic crises, feeding a cycle that is more and more close and
violent.
When the financial markets market
was deregulated, emerging hidden Hedge Funds that enter in unfair competition
with traditional banks, consequently the banks adopted much of strategies of
Financial Funds_ operating from fiscal paradises.
Never in the cycle of fall of the empires, could the masters of those imperial states have accessed a so terrible weapons_ electronic weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, that they are already used and will be used to perpetuate its hegemony and resist to the end, supported by the moral doctrine of utilitarianism.
Philosophy C
“What it means to be“?
The Aristotelian Man is not only a
philosophical abstraction, but also a citizen; Aristotle’s thought builds a
bridge between two dimensions of human being, the philosophy of existence and
political philosophy. (Aristole, 1984)
Aristotle maintains that only on
the city-state human beings attains the limit of good life, which means accept
the law and justice authority of the community. The
moral void, that the Cartesian philosophy does not occupied, it is not
inevitable consequence of the abandonment of divine conception of human nature
and its ontological, ethical, and anthropological unity; even in classical
Western philosophy, in parallel with the Aristotelian thought, other concepts
of moral emerged without religious foundation, but never becoming dominant.
Such was the case of Epicurus,
which work we know only a few fragments, that is singularly modern in its
appeal to the altruism in relation to the “other” and concerning the possession
of material goods, the practice of gender equality in the gardens of the
philosophy and above all the recognition of the intrinsic meaning of life
liberated from the heuristics of fear ... of death.
Backing to the advent of the modern age, the thought of Bento de Espinosa surmounted the dichotomy between the subjectivity and the nature, without breaking that unity; the concept of extension of the categories of God Substance and God Nature, unifies the being and the duty, without putting the Man above nature and under its domain. However not denies the autonomy of reason that Kant would elevate to a higher grade; furthermore, is that potentiality to liberate the power of rationality and human autonomy, from the philosophical perspective of the unity of Substance and Nature, that do not consent no one privileged status to the human species.[2]
Environmental Ethics, Enlarging the Concepts of Community and Person, New Duties Face Nature, Land Ethics and Animal Ethics
Separate Science and Philosophy,
mean not recognize the dialectic between the two different kinds of thinking.
Before them, Vladimir Vernadsky
(1886–1943) viewed the biosphere and the conditions under which life emerged on
our planet as an inseparable component of a certain structure of the Earth’s
crust and its degree of organization.
Academician Marov, the head of the Department of Cosmochemistry, at the Russian Academy of Sciences, wrote:
“Vernadsky identified the boundaries of the biosphere as well as its composition, energetics, and dynamics. He included in the biosphere the upper part of the lithosphere to a depth of 2-3 km, which contains living bacteria, the hydrosphere, and the lower part of the atmosphere. Within the biosphere he distinguished two component types of matter: minerals, which he termed “inert,” and living matter. The morphology of inert matter (its chemical composition and physical state) is preserved unchanged in the course of geological time, while living matter, both in totality and in its individual forms, undergoes continual change in the process of the biosphere’s evolution as an integrated system. Vernadsky considered living matter, the active component of the biosphere, to be the carrier of free energy in the biosphere’s geochemical processes, viewing certain forms of homogeneous living matter that have remained unchanged for billions of years (such as some species of Radiolaria that have been unchanged since the Algonkian Era, or the genus Lingula, unchanged since the Cambrian Era) as exceptions. At the same time, he rejected the existence of any special zones between living and non-living matter, advancing the empirical generalization that “there are no transitions between living and inert natural bodies of the biosphere: the boundary between them has been sharp and clear during the entire span of geological history. … Matter in the biosphere is comprised of two states, which differ materially and energetically, living, and inert.” (Marov, 2013, p.3)
Aldo Leopold based the intrinsic moral values of all beings and entities of nature in scientific laws that prescribes the dynamic balance of ecosystems, who do not can be sustained if we preserve no more than the plants and animals that have a value of merchandising.
“…The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, water, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land” . (Leopold. 1949)
“I propose the use of 'person' to beings rational and self-conscious, to incorporate the elements of the common sense of human being that are not covered by member of species Homo Sapiens“. (Singer, 1993)
From the first UN environmental
conferences, held in Stockholm in 1972, emerged the principle of a “common
house” "… man has two homelands, his own and planet Earth"; the
principle of a planetary community and solidarity, founders of a new
international order (political and ethical order) and the principle of
defending life on the planet and its biodiversity before humanism. (UNCHE 1972).
Those principles build a first
frontier line with the cultural and political perspective of ethnocentrism.
The critical perspective of environment philosophy toward the ethnocentrism claims:
"Ethnocentrism is an emotionally conditioned approach that considers and judges other societies by their own culture’s criteria. It is easy to see that this attitude leads to contempt and hate of all ways of life that are different from that of the observer." (Dias, 1961)
The critique of ethnocentrism not
only justifies the respect for all national cultures and all forms of classical
and popular cultural expression, but also rejects any notion of superiority
from a certain model of society, race, or ethnicity.
In the historical context of the industrial revolution and contemporary technical and scientific revolution, emerged the utilitarian philosophy, and the moral of the best benefit or the minimum damage. But also, are systematized the Environmental Philosophy and the Environmental Ethics. Their philosophical critique against anthropocentrism put in question the liberal ideology and the liberal police, supported by the religious vision that gives to man, elected creature by God to preside over the divine creation, the absolute right to take ownership of nature for their purposes, without any limit or restriction.
Contribution for the Critic of the Single Though
From the end (?) of Cold War
emerged “The single thought”, characterized by:
The omission of History and the
proclamation of the end of History (liberal democracy would be the last
political regime!?); the end of national sovereign, the end of national
welfare…
Amputation and manipulation of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that remain largely unknown and
identified with the neoliberal thesis or liberal democracy.
The falsification and the
manipulation of the concept of State (the concept of communist State is a
fabrication of the “cold war”, completely strange to the communist ideology)
The lack of international law,
sovereign organs, modern State…United Nations, and the overcame of global
institutions note elected, FMI, World Bank and NATO over United Nations
institutions, Eurogroup and European Central Bank over European Parliament,
International Rating Agency over National Banks and National States…
The deregulation of the market
(labor market deregulation, economic market deregulation, fiscal
deregulation…), fiscal paradises, restricted cartel of the giant banks, vulture
funds.
The globalization of a hegemonic
economic model, private, served by automation and robotization without limits
and reparations.
The mass media concentration and
social networks in the hands of a restricted oligarchy, driven to political
manipulation and hidden business.
The main responsibility toward
environmental crises assigned to China and new developing countries.
The vocational mission of the University to the fundamental research and to develop several lines of thought, driven by the economic utilitarianism and the neoliberal dogmas.
The Omission of History and the
Proclamation of the End of Histor
Fukuyama fundamental thesis, in
the book The End of History and the Last Man, is not about the end of
ideologies, but a celebration of the triumph of liberal democracy doctrines
(and the US-UK model of democracy) over socialist ideology and socialist
regimens from the East of Europe, in the context of the fall of URSS and
European Popular Republics, celebrated by Milton Freedman as the triumph of political
and economic neoliberalism.
The master idea of Fukuyama was
the same of Churchill, the conservative first minister of UK that win the war
against Nazism but not understand the changes of the post-war world and inside
your own country: The national movements pushing to decolonization, against
racism and social discriminations, and fighting for a new international order,
peaceful and democratic. It was defeat in the first elections after the end of
war in Europe.
Churchill proclaims in the House of Commons (11 November 1947)
“Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” (Churchill, 2007, 574)
At the same time, he declared[3]:
“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere.” (Churchill, 2007)
Churchill's doctor Lord Moran
reveals that Churchill suggesting in 1946 that the United States make a
pre-emptive atomic bomb attack on Moscow while the Soviet Union did not yet
possess nuclear weapons and in 1947, he put the idea in a memo to President
Truman.[4]
In the end of II World War, the
thought and ideas of more powerful Western liberal leaders reserve full
democracy to the old (UK) and new (USA) imperial countries, the white supremacy
and racism is preserved inside those national and international communities and
justify that democracy was not for all countries and nations. The fair of
communism would be the following great idea.
Reducing the world contradictions
to a clash between two blocs only was possible, during more than 50 years, with
the omission of Non-Aligned Movement (115 democracies) and ignoring the
differences of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (and other socialisms and
democracies) and the fall of the USSR and its block. .
That omission of History is the
same in our time, the time of Fukuyama and Friedman.
The diffusion of the master idea about the possibility of non-evolution historical of political regimes, is really a manifestation of political alienation and a signal of dogmatism, representing a model of thought that is in the origin of the crises not only in the doctrine of socialism but too in the core of liberalism doctrine, from the last to the present centur
Amputation and Manipulation of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN on December 10, 1948
(A/RES/217), initially drafted by J. P. Humphrey of Canada, had in Dr. P.C.
Chang, representative of China and the positions of Asian countries, the main
mediator of the consensus established in its 30 articles.
By this time, the
Kuomintang militarist coalition had already abandoned the government of
national unity that faced and defeated the Japanese occupation and launched
China into a new civil war, convinced that the numerical superiority of its
army and U.S. military support would give it victory,
The document of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights then corresponded to a great yummy of
peace, independence, and social justice, common to all the peoples and nations
of the world.
All 30 articles, which enshrine fundamental democratic rights, as the right to work and social welfare, the equality of gender and face the law, have the same political dimension and are determinate for two ethical imperatives that the Declaration proclaims in its preamble, the imperative of dignity and the imperative of peace
“recognition
of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world; “
That dignity will be
protected ..." if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last
resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression” and “ should be protected
by the rule of law”. It will only be defended with"…the development of
friendly relations between nations."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN on December 10, 1948 (A/RES/217), written in two hands by J. P. Humphrey of Canada and Dr. P.C. Chang, representative of China, in none of its articles enshrines the model of liberal democracy as the ideal model of political democracy. And the issue of democracy cannot be reduced to the issue of formal "political freedoms". What article 21 prescribes is the path to citizenship and the diversity of democratic regimes.
“Article 21
1. Everyone has the
right to take part in the government of his country,
directly or through
freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the
right to equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the
people shall be the basis of the authority of government;
this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall
be by universal and
equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by
equivalent free voting procedures.”
This political vision,
of the diversity of democratic regimes, born in different historical
conditions, continues in the political thinking of all Chinese leaders and now
in Xi Jinping.
In the act of foundation
of the People's Republic of China (in 1949) this was already the proclaimed
path, that of a New Democracy, which was later enshrined in Article 6 of the
Constitution, which defines the original concept of "Socialism with
Chinese Characteristics", based on the System of Multiparty Cooperation
and Political Consultation and the replacement of the economic system of exploitation
of man by man by the joint development of the diversified property economy,
with the predominance of public property.
The Common Programme, founder of
the People's Republic of China_ PRC in 1949 and then the Constitution of the
People's Republic of China, integrated all the articles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
In the 2004 Constitutional Review, the entire Chinese nation, represented in the National People's Assembly and the Political Consultative Conference of the Chinese People, at the initiative of the PCCh and with the support of the other eight political parties and personalities without party affiliation, recorded in the fundamental law its determination to strengthen and apply the principles emanating from the Declaration :
"Private
property obtained legally by citizens should not be violated"
"The state respects and protects human rights. "
Let us remember the
political context from which the five principles of peaceful coexistence of New
China emerged.
Chu-En-Lai, then
Minister of Foreign Affairs, proposed to the world, divided from the Cold War,
and threatened by nuclear holocaust, the Five Principles of Peaceful
Coexistence (1954): 1) mutual respect for sovereignty and national integrity;
2) non-aggression 3) non-intervention in the internal affairs of one country by
another; 4) equality and reciprocal benefits and 5) peaceful coexistence
between states with different social and ideological systems. The Movement of
Non-Aligned Countries (1961) adopted them as their own and the two superpowers
saw in their own countries the rebirth of social movements for peace.[5]
The principles of Universal
Declaration of Human Rights _UDHR, freedom, justice and peace in the
world, the development of friendly
relations between nations, was quickly abandoned, but the memory of the tragedy
of II War and the desire of democracy and peace was very strong around the
word, so propaganda would be
indispensable to justify new military
confrontations.
In the Korean War (1950-1953) a conflict of Cold War, Douglas MacArthur the general commandant in chief of USA and allied troops, wants to develop a global strategy to extend the struggle directly to China and URSS and gain military supremacy with the utilization of tactical atomic weapons. It was dismissed, accused of insubordination and the menace was deferred.
“It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe’s war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. As you pointed out, we must win. There is no substitute for victory”.[6] (James, 1985)
The Cold War was transformed on a
global confrontation, ideological, political, military in restrict scale and,
obviously, in the battlefield of economy.
In 1962, Friedman criticized the
Welfare System in his book Capitalism and Freedom arguing that it had
created welfare dependency and propose private charity as one recourse for
alleviating poverty.
Friedman doctrine clashes with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights_ UDHR:
“Artic le 22”.
Everyone, as a
member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to
realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in
accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic,
social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality.”
“Article 25.
Everyone has the
right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
Friedman’s became the main
opposite of Keynesian government policies. He theorized that there existed a
“natural” rate of unemployment and argued that unemployment below this rate
would cause inflation to accelerate. Friedman economic doctrine promote
macroeconomic “monetarism”, negative taxation, privatization, and deregulation.
In an April 21, 1975, as adviser
of the dictator Pinochet, Friedman can apply its neoliberal program:
“There is only one way to end inflation: by drastically reducing the
rate of increase of the quantity of money … cutting government spending is by
far and away the most desirable way to reduce the fiscal deficit”. (Choosing)
“a brief period of higher unemployment”… because it … strengthens the private
sector.” [7]
A recipe that is extended to all
America Central, America Latina and Europa. Friedman was an advisor of
Republican President Ronald Reagan and Conservative British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher. His political philosophy celebrated the virtues of “free market”,
what means deregulation of economic and financial systems with minimal
intervention of state, extended to all domains, such as a volunteer military,
freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative
income tax and school vouchers, what means adding publicly operated schools
with private management but publicly funded schools through a system of school
vouchers.
Friedman favored immigration,
because take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take,
suggesting that immigrants should not have access to the welfare system.
Once again clashes with UDHR:
“Article 23.
Everyone has the
right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against
unemployment.”
The deregulation of economic and
financial market, with an innumerable tax havens which provide cover for money
laundering, the creation of hidden financial products, vulture financial funds,
the end of separation between investment banks and commercial banks, represent
the triumph of Friedman doctrine, not only in the range of conservative parties
but involving socialist like UK Labour, from The Third Way of Tony Blair or
American Democrats with President Bill Clinton government. The financial crises
of 2007-2008 was the consequence.
A brutal clashes against the UDHR
too: In the US, despite the nominal GDP growth, the wealth of American citizens
increasingly concentrated in a few scant 1% of the American population _ in
2006, this group of top received 53% of the income, and in 2010 came to 93%.
That means the concentration of
capital and property, the loss of public propriety and the expropriation of
middle class_ entrepreneurs, farmers, workers, houses, cars, pensions, savings…
“Article 17.
(1) Everyone has
the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
The US Census Bureau reported that
16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty. What is worse is that extreme
poverty _ of those who live on less than 2 dollars a day, was twice of 1966,
growing from 1.5 million to 2.8 million children and families![8]
In 2020, the UN Commission of
Human Rights account 40 million of peoples living in poverty on the USA, but
the national and civil institutions that fight against poverty considering 140
million that cannot access to the essential commodities, in conformity of the
concept of the PPP_ Power Purchasing
Parities, as healthy cares, a real house, food and clothes, secondary
education……
The theory of Friedman of
tendencies to reducing poverty is not confirmed in its own country!
“Article 25
Motherhood and
childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether
born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.”
The actual crises
of emigration, with the refugee refusal by repressive means in the border of
USA and Europe, carries further the abandonment of the UDHR:
“Article 14.
(1) Everyone has
the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right
may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from
non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of
the United Nations.”
“Article 15.
(1) Everyone has
the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality.
Why focused the
political debate concerning UDHR in China? To divert attention, because Peoples
Republic of China is unknown and the prejudices from Cold War does not
disappear.”
Diplomatic Conflict Between
USA and China Over Xinjiang and Human Rights
On July 8, 2019, a group of 22 states issued a joint letter to the 41st
session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which condemned
China’s mass detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in the Xinjiang region
of northwest China.
Just four days later, on July 12, 2019, another group of 37 states issued a
competing letter to the UNHRC that backed the PRC’s policies in the Xinjiang
region (Xinhua, July 13). This letter asserted that “the work of [UNHRC] should
be conducted in an objective… non-confrontational and non-politicized matter,”
and expressed “firm opposition to relevant countries’ practice of politicizing
human rights issues, by naming and shaming, and publicly exerting pressures on
other countries.” This letter commended “China’s remarkable achievements” in
“protecting and promoting human rights through development.” The letter further
“call[ed] on relevant countries to refrain from employing unfounded charges
against China,” and urged the UNHRC to approach the Xinjiang situation “in an
objective and impartial manner… with true and genuinely credible information”
(UNHRC, July 12).
One signatory state, Qatar, subsequently withdrew its support. However, by
the time the Second Letter was re-issued later in July, representatives of
thirteen additional states and the Palestinian Authority had added their
support, bringing the total number of signatories to fifty.
Looking at the “22” and “50” groups of countries bring us three key
observations. The first observation is that, in the latter group, 23
Islamic-majority states backed the PRC, Chinese politic in Xinjiang. Turkey did not sign this Letter, but only a few days before the statement
was published Turkey’s President Erdogan claimed that “residents of various
ethnicities living happily in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region thanks to
China’s prosperity is a hard fact, and Turkey will not allow anyone to drive a
wedge in its relations with China” (Al-Araby, July 3).[9]
Second observation. In the American side, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland
and 19 European countries. Not a single Muslim country. It is noteworthy that
the United States itself did not participate in the “22” group letter. Traditional allies that host U.S. military bases, such as Bahrain, Kuwait,
and Saudi Arabia, not subscribe the accusations of USA, because do not exist
founded charges against China, they know that US government and European Union
do not accept the invitations from Chinese government to send their official
representatives to visit Xinjiang; because their own missions, representatives, tourists, journalists, came regularly to the autonomous region during the
terrorist period and after the eradication of terrorism; many of them suffering
the same types of terrorist aggression, the manipulation of Islamic religion,
like Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia Mozambique…not for
pragmatic reasons of business. China commerce police is based on the five
principles of peaceful coexistence, not depends of the ideology of the regimes
but refuse the foreign interference in their sovereignty. And the last, but not
the least, because those Islamic countries and the group of 50 have not
illusions that the only thing that move the American government is the
conservation of USA hegemony over the entire world, and the time for a
multipolar international order, arrived!
Third observation. Is not credible that some of the 22 governments
countries are sincerely compromised with the application of the principles and
30 articles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in own country, to
the Muslims that live there and to the unknown Uigur and other 46 nationalities
of Xinjiang Autonomous Region. For a crucial reason, that was systematize for
Kenneth Roth Executive Director of the unsuspected (?) Human Rights Watch: “Traditionally, these (Human Rights) are seen as
only civil and political rights, such as freedom of expression, the right to a
fair trial, the right not to be tortured. But it ends there”. (in the
U.S.)". [10]
Is the same thing, to the 22 governments.
The new government of Bidden, pushed by the politic of Senate, radicalize the accusations to the absurd of Genocide. Without consistent proves, not listen United Nations UNHRC, and after all the fake news are denied for independent observers and reports, without accepted China invitation to send their officials to visit Xinjiang.
The Falsification and the Manipulation of the Concept of State
The fallacy of the “Communist
State”. The case of PRC
The Cold War brought not only the
heuristics of fear of nuclear weapons, justified for the "balance of
terror" and those mass production and deadly development, but a new
battleground, the ideological confrontation, that invaded all social areas,
stating that nowhere the neutrality would be saved, and thus mobilized churches
and universities, did not spare neither science nor arts and, above all,
monopolized the modern media and social networks.
The concept of "Communist
State" is a product of that war without truce or limits, completely
foreign to the original Marxist doctrine, or tendency and evolution. Marx
advocated the construction of a new Communist social order without the
necessity of a coercive apparatus of citizens, the State as an instrument of
powerful serving the dominant class. (Marx,1962)
Marx, taking lessons from the
insurrection of the Paris Commune (1871), theorized a new transitional power
system, the “Comuna” a people’s assembly with the leaders elected and renewable
permanently in popular assemblages, without privilege status, served by a
military force not an army of barracks, but formed by all citizens who take
guns to defend their ideals. During the Russian revolutions of 1917 and 1918
emerged spontaneously those popular assemblies, but now in a new political
context, named “Soviets”.
The October 1918 proletarian
Soviet revolution, led by the Bolsheviks, was the first revolution that
created, on a permanent basis and through extensive polling, new structures of
power, controlled by the "Vanguard’s workers politicized" and by
their organic intellectuals that came from the middle class_ the Soviets,
which, as Marx pointed out, emerged spontaneously in the Paris Commune in the
form of committees of representatives elected directly by universal suffrage
and popular straight.
During the period of the
democratic revolution in China, the working class has been replaced by the
great mass of the peasants, and the first Chinese Soviets emerged in rural
areas controlled by the Red Army, as the embryonic instruments of a new State
to carry out land reform in China and win military warlords and semi feudal big
landowners. During the war against Japanese occupation and the constitution of
a national front, those soviets were drives by a three quarters committee: a
third of communists, a third of nationalists and a third of other democrats and
representatives of peasants. That
structure was preserved after the war and transformed in the Chinese People’s
Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC):
The Socialism with Chinese
Characteristics that Mao theorized as a long March, a New Democracy founded by
People's Republic of China, begins!
The Communist utopia (the extinction of the State with the advent of world communism) would be an ideal for the future, that will come with the end of any kind of oppressive State but could not be a regimen to establish immediately: this regime would be the "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics", adapted at the historical conditions of this vast country with 56 nationalities, the cradle of the first civilizations of mankind, 5.000 years aged.
The Lack of International Law, Sovereign
Organs, Modern Stat
The Monroe
Doctrine
The Monroe
Doctrine was
articulated in President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on
December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to
respect the Western Hemisphere as the “United States' sphere of interest”. The
doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate
further colonization or puppet monarchs. The doctrine was conceived to meet
major concerns of the moment, but it soon became a watchword of U.S. policy in
the Western Hemisphere.[11]
Monroe doctrine (XIX) reborned on
interventionist doctrine in Eurasia (Mackinder, Kennan, Spykman, Brzezinski, XX),
developed by the Eisenhower Doctrine, Reagan Doctrine… expand the USA “global
interest” around the world.
US create the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization in 1949 to fight against “communist expansion”, but in fact
to oppose all political movements and revolutions that could be hors of control
of the so-called American way of Life, freedom concept and liberal democracy.
Yugoslav, Iraq, Libya, and Syria
are the most recent military interventions, justified for fake news and without
the authorization of United Nations.
The principles of the doctrine were so broad that it was Obama president that state an executive order that designates Republic Bolivarian of Venezuela as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security” accompanied by US heavy sanctions (2015). Republican Government of Trump government menaces with a military interview against the government Bolivarian of Venezuela, was once more politically justified by the Monroe doctrine and wants to impose a new interim president!
The Theory of
“Limited Sovereignty”.
The Brezhnev Doctrine of foreign policy, first and most clearly outlined by Sergei Kovalev in a September 26, 1968 Pravda article entitled Sovereignty and the International Obligations of Socialist Countries. Leonid Brezhnev reiterated it in a speech at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party on November 13, 1968.
“When forces that
are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country
towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but
a common problem and concern of all socialist countries.”[12]
The propaganda of the Brezhnev
government claim for "international socialist division of labor”, about
"specialization and cooperation in the production of the countries of the
socialist community", etc. so-called “complex program of the further
deepening and improvement of collaboration and development of the socialist
economic integration of the CMEA member countries". the unilateral
development of the economies of other countries so that in everything –raw
materials, technique and technology, fuel and markets to sell their commodities
– they should be completely dependent on the Soviet Union and serve the Soviet
economy as a monopoly area for the export of Soviet capital and commodities,
and as a source of profits. Soviet Union is the only country among them which
develops all the main branches of production on its own territory, and is not
subject to "specialization”, whereas all the others are dependent on it in
many vital branches and orientations of the development of the economy.
The principles of the doctrine
were so broad that URSS government even used it to justify their military
intervention in the non-Warsaw Pact nation, like Afghanistan in 1979.
A sort of ideological symmetry can be found in the imperial polices!
The Overcame of Global Institutions Note Elected
IMF came into formal existence in
1945 with 29 member countries and the goal of reconstructing the international
payment system. From 1946 to the early 1970s, the Bretton Woods system made
fixed currencies the norm; however, in 1971, the US decided no longer to uphold
the dollar exchange at 1/35th of an ounce of gold and so its currency was no
longer fixed.
Executive Board: 24 Executive
Directors make up the Executive Board, seven countries each appoint an
Executive Director: the United States, Japan, China, Germany, France, the
United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia. The remaining 17 Directors represent
constituencies consisting of 2 to 23 countries. The Board membership and
constituency is scheduled for periodic review every eight years.
World Bank technically is part of
the United Nations system, but its governance structure is different: As of 15
November 2009, the United States held 16.4% of total votes, Japan 7.9%, Germany
4.5%, the United Kingdom 4.3%, and France 4.3%. As changes to the Bank's
Charter require an 85% super-majority, the US can block any major change in the
Bank's governing structure.
In addition, the World Bank is deeply implicated in contemporary modes of
donor and NGO driven imperialism; another author, C. Caufield, criticizes the
highly homogenized and Western recipes of "development" held by the
Bank. Western approaches to life are adopted and traditional economic
structures and values are abandoned. Poor countries cannot modernize without
money and advice from abroad.[13]
An American law of 1945 give
international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund, the same legal immunity that gives foreign Governments. That is, they cannot be held responsible for
the consequences of its funding programs.[14]
The Eurogroup is the informal
meeting of the finance ministers of the Eurozone, those 19 member states of the
European Union (EU) which have adopted the euro as their official currency. It
exercises political control over the currency and related aspects of the EU's
monetary union such as the Stability and Growth Pact, without a clear mandate.
Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, the Eurogroup had no legal basis and Protocol 14
(2009) only mentioned the informal discuss of the “questions related to the
specific responsibilities they share with regard to the single currency”.
During the euro crisis take on
very large discretionary powers and limited democratic oversight.
European Central Bank primary
objective, set out in Article 127 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, is to maintain price stability within the Eurozone, but this
objective has never been defined in statutory law, and the HICP target can be
termed ad-hoc.
Four seats were assigned to the largest members, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. The Governing Council is the main decision-making body of the Eurosystem. It comprises the members of the Executive Board (six in total) and the governors of the National Central Banks of the euro area countries.
The Deregulation of the Market - The Dictatorship of the Hidden Financial Capital
Transnational corporations started
to control more capital than nation-states in the 1980s.
The late 20th century age of
globalization, deregulation of national labor markets following the OECD (1994)
guidelines. Labour market “rigidities” were thought to be harmful in the face
of international competition. The 2008–2009 financial chaos casted doubts on
the benefits of financial market deregulation in the own neoliberal camp,
arguing that deregulation exposes consumption to more risk, have a negative
effect on country-level consumption, their welfare effect is negative on
average, and particularly negative for low-wealth individuals. [15]
After the politic of austerity,
the deregulation don´t stop and is symbolic that was Poland, the first country
from the East Europe that reversed the “socialism” into “democracy “, through a
political movement directed by the Trade Union Confederation Solidarność, to
decree the reversibility of an eight-hour working day, a historical right acquired by the working
movement 150 years ago. (Observatory,2017)
On again the debate concerning
deregulation is alienated from the issue of Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
“Article 24.
Everyone has the
right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay.”
That is possible because the
modern and scientific concept of Political Economy it was amputated and
transformed in Economy!
What is the scientific object of
studying Political Economy? It is to study how capital is generated and
reproduced, and the role of each social class in that process of production and
distribution.
The economy transformed in an abstraction of formulas and supposed iron laws, the moral attributes of same concepts, private is good, public is bad, or vice versa, they are ideological concepts that masks the reality, they are alienating thought patterns.
Fiscal Paradises
There are more than 70 tax havens
in the world. It has been estimated that up to half of world trade might be
routed through tax havens, up to $600 billion a year. The OECD has estimated
that 60% of world trade takes place between multinational companies. More than
half of this is thought to take place through tax havens; use of schemes to
avoid.
The banks, lawyers and accountants
who work in these territories are largely owned by or are associated with major
partnerships and corporations located in the EU or the USA. This only happens
because they profit from using these arrangements.
They encourage crime and
corruption by providing the secrecy space in which it can happen; they
encourage tax evasion by providing a tax free environment in which it can be
claimed profits are earned when the real transactions take place elsewhere;
they provide a safe home for “capital flight” money that wants to be hidden
from prying eyes; they provide a space in which the regulations of the developed
economies put in place to protect their citizens from abuse can be avoided by
unscrupulous businesses.
World Bank and the IMF disbursed billion USD to fiscal paradises. [16
Cartel of the
Giant Banks
The Bank of New York Mellon will
pay $714 million to settle accusations that it cheated government pension funds
and other investors for more than a decade. The authorities accused the bank of
assuring clients that they would receive the best possible rate when executing
a currency trade. In reality, the authorities said, the bank did just the
opposite: It provided clients “prices that were at or near the worst interbank
rates,” enabling the bank to make extra cash during the 2008 financial crisis.
The victims included New York City
pension funds and prominent private investors, the authorities said. City
investors included teachers and police officers, while the private investment
funds belonged to the likes of Duke University and the Walt Disney Company.
Goldman Sachs is paying its largest bill yet to resolve a government lawsuit
related to the financial crisis.
The Goldman bank said that it had
agreed to buy back $3.15 billion in mortgage bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac to end a lawsuit filed in 2011 by the Federal Housing Finance Agency…
Most of the other 18 banks that faced similar suits from the housing agency have already reached settlements. The previous settlements have included penalties, which Goldman avoided
Vulture Funds
Vulture funds have been criticized
for profiting from countries that are in financial distress. The former UK
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, described vulture funds as “morally
outrageous” for trying to benefit from debt relief programs for impoverished
countries aimed at educating children and tackling the increasing poverty
levels.
Vulture funds have average
recovery rates of 5 to 20 times their initial investment, and this put their
rates of return at 300% to 2.000%,
In a 2007 IMF report on vulture
funds, it was reported that 11 out of 24 developing countries were involved in
legal tussles with vulture funds.[17]
Vulture funds extend their action to the privatization of companies and banks, imposed by conditions of loans from FMI, World Bank and the European Troika.
Rating Agency
The credit rating industry is
dominated by three big agencies, which control 95% of the rating business. The
top firms include Moody’s Investor Services, Standard and Poor’s (S&P), and
Fitch Group. Moody’s and S& P are located in the United States, and they
dominate 80% of the international market. Fitch is located in the United States
and London and controls approximately 15% of the global market. Morningstar
Inc. has expanded its market share in recent times and is expected to feature
in the “top four rating agencies.” The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) identified the big three agencies as the Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSRO) in 1975.
The big three agencies came under
heavy criticism after the global financial crisis for giving favorable ratings
to insolvent institutions like Lehman Brothers. They were also blamed for
failing to detect risky mortgage-backed securities that led to the collapse of
the real estate market in the United States.
In a report titled “Financial Crisis
Inquiry Report,” the big three rating agencies were accused of being the
enablers of the 2008 financial meltdown. In a bid to tame the market dominance
of the big three, Eurozone countries have encouraged financial firms and other
companies to do their own credit assessments, instead of relying on the big
three rating agencies.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) reached eight main conclusions[18]
the failures of credit rating
agencies were essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction.
this financial crisis was
avoidable.
widespread failures in financial
regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation's
financial markets.
dramatic failures of corporate
governance and risk management at many systemically important financial
institutions were a key cause of this crisis.
a combination of excessive
borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency put the financial system
on a collision course with crisis.
the government was ill-prepared
for the crisis, and its inconsistent response added to the uncertainty and
panic in the financial markets.
there was a systemic breakdown in
accountability and ethics collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the
mortgage securitization pipeline lit and spread the flame of contagion and
crisis.
over-the-counter derivatives contributed
significantly to this crisis.
Automation and
Robotization “Takes your Job Should Pay Taxes”
The wave of scientific revolution
served by automation and robotization without limits and reparations and drive
for a global privatization can’t create more and best jobs for the majority of
work classes.
The investment projects of
multinational companies, supported by automation and robotization, which
announce the creation of a large number of jobs, require a reassessment of the
ratio of investment per job created and, when this ratio is established, reveal
a low productivity if we take into account the cost of direct creation of each
workplace, subsidies and tax exemptions granted by the local and national
Government.
And we stress that the previous
argument don´t defends a reductive vision of the problem, because a great
investment also means contributing indirectly to support the jobs of several
suppliers of raw materials, machinery and equipment, and their generate
revenues results in escalation of taxes that accrue to the State.
Questioning the common sense of
productivity, the author invoke the Laws of the Social Productivity of
Investment, emerging from the new economic and social framework born the fourth
industrial revolution, which postulate
"The weight of the fixed
capital investment is inversely proportional to the direct creation of jobs and
the rate of job creation is lower the more advanced is the technology
incorporated in the fixed capital"
(Queirós, 2017)
In that context, I think, Bill Gates says: “The robot that takes your job should pay taxes”.[19]
The Globalization of a Hegemonic Economic Mode
Two decades ago, it was published Globalisation and Its Discontents, a book that sought to explain why there was so much dissatisfaction with globalization within the developing countries. Now discontent with globalization has fueled in US and other advanced economies. And the author, former chief economist at the World Bank, wrote
“There are three
responses to globalized discontent with globalization. The first – call it the
Las Vegas strategy – is to double down on the bet on globalization as it has
been managed for the past quarter-century. This bet, like all bets on proven
policy failures (such as trickle-down economics), is based on the hope that
somehow it will succeed in the future.
The second
response is Trumpism: cut oneself off from globalization, in the hope that
doing so will somehow bring back a bygone world. But protectionism won’t work.
Globally, manufacturing jobs are on the decline, simply because productivity
growth has outpaced growth in demand.
Even if
manufacturing were to come back, the jobs will not. Advanced manufacturing
technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require
higher skills and will be placed at different locations than the jobs that were
lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further increasing
the discontent felt by those left behind.
Trump will fail
even in his proclaimed goal of reducing the trade deficit, which is determined
by the disparity between domestic savings and investment. Now that the
Republicans have got their way and enacted a tax cut for billionaires, national
savings will fall and the trade deficit will rise, owing to an increase in the
value of the dollar. (Fiscal deficits and trade deficits normally move so
closely together they are called “twin” deficits.) Trump may not like it, but
as he is slowly finding out, there are some things that even a person in the
most powerful position in the world cannot control.
There is a third approach: social protection without protectionism, the kind of approach that the small Nordic countries took. They knew that as small countries they had to remain open. But they also knew that remaining open would expose workers to risk. Thus, they had to have a social contract that helped workers move from old jobs to new and provide some help in the interim.” [20]
The Mass Media Concentration and Manipulation
Media analyst and University of
California professor Ben Bagdikian published The Media Monopoly in 1983 about
the growing concentration of ownership of news organizations. Bagdikian 2004
analysis indicates that Americans are served by 1.468 daily newspapers, 6.000
assorted magazines, 10.000 radio stations, 2.700 television and cable stations,
and 2,600 book publishers that are under the aegis of five major multinational
corporations![21] The U.S. government has sought to regulate
media ownership through antitrust laws. However, The Telecommunications Act of
1996 and rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission _FCC do permit
media concentration. In 2017, the FCC relaxed limits on TV station ownership
and reversed a rule that prevented a single company from owning a newspaper and
television and radio stations in the same town.
Berlusconi, the former prime
minister of Italy has kept control of his media empire, turning its nose up
conflict between his political and business interests. …
Robert Murdoch is one of the most
influential people in the media industry, with business interests that span
television broadcasting and film production to newspapers and book publishing.
Creator of a Worldwide Media Empire
On the other hand, Internet giants
promise more diversity of media resources to ability many voices to speak. But
they collect information to sell them for political campaigns and business
advertising.
Facebook plans to integrate its
messaging services on Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger. One single
man, Mark Zuckerberg control 56% of the common capital
Internet, social networks,
Facebook or Google promise freedom of opinion and free access, but there are
rentable business and tools of manipulation and can invade our privacy at our
own house.[22]
According to American linguist and
political activist, Noam Chomsky, media operate through 5 filters: ownership
(reserved to multinational corporations, for their own profit), advertising
(creating the necessity to buy merchandises), the media elite (propaganda news
and opinion makers, promotion of leaders and fake news,, interpretation of
facts and realities) flak (moving away the critical thought, exclude,
eliminate) and the common enemy (the enemy choose by the representatives of
financial, political and economic power). [23]
“Fake News” are not a problem
limited to the social networks. It is the practice of the great social media
and the social networks. Remember the propaganda to justify the Iraqi invasion,
the existence of weapons of mass destruction! Remember the propaganda to
justify the military intervention against the Libya regime, protect the people
from the repression of the government, refusing negotiations and a political
solution. Retake in Syria, diabolizing the government of Bashar Hafez al-Assad
and supporting and army all oppositionists’ groups, omitting the nature
terrorist of ISIS and other fundamentalists, noticing the use of chemical
weapons after the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons _ OPCW
acceded to the stated that destruction was completed in Syria….
Returning to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The mass media and social networks concentration and manipulation signify a real and hidden intentional interference against the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
The Responsibility Toward Environmental Crises
The development of the Chinese
economy had as counterpart that People's Republic of China became the country
most responsible for the largest amount of greenhouse gases emitted each year,
the main cause of global warming. But
let us look at the problem throughout all dimensions and historical evolution,
based on one of the most reputable European agencies of the environment:
According to Dutch scientists of
NEAA, if all CO2 present in the atmosphere today was divided between the
countries responsible for its emissions during the modern age, the United
States would be blamed for 27% of the total, the European Union by 20%, while
China only fit 8%. (JRC/NEAA/PBL, 2016).
Also in 2003, the per capita emission
of the USA was 19.8 tons of CO2. In Australia, this number was 18 t, in Canada
17,9 t in Saudi Arabia, 13 t. China, Brazil and India have per capita emissions
of 3,2 t, 1,2 t and 1,6 t respectively.
In raw numbers, in 2006, whereas
only gases released by the burning of fossil fuels and cement production, the
US had a production of 5,8 billion metric tons of CO2 while China’s production
was 6,23 billion tons CO2 metrics. Considering the per capita emission, the USA
are representing 19,278 t CO2 per capita, while China gets 4,763 T per capita.
It is true that China in your set
pollutes more, but, as the Chinese are more than Americans, per capita values
are below. So, and now in 2014, while each American on average issued 16,5 tons
of carbon dioxide, a Chinese issued roughly half that amount 7,6 tons.
If it consider the role of China
as the world center of recycle of plastics, computers and other very polluting
goods, coming from Europa, USA and other development countries, that average
would be more penalizing for them.
China has reduced the emission of
carbon dioxide of carbon and the European Union increased it, here’s an
inconvenient truth, which contradicts the dominant propaganda in the media.
Committed to green development, China puts an enormous effort into pollution control and takes concrete steps to promote ecological progress toward a beautiful China. The 19th CPC National Congress sounded a clarion call to win the battle against pollution. The National Conference on Environmental Protection established Xi Jinping thought on ecological progress
“University Management”, Under Utilitarianism and Neoliberal Dogma
The University of Berlin was the
first modern university, established in 1810. It was founded on the principles
of academic freedom, the unity of research and teaching, and the primacy of
research over vocational training.
It functioned as the archetype of
universities around the world, for a century and a half.
Universities, throughout the 20th
century, has evolved to a functional model of training, integrating
progressively in its structures the Polytechnics but have developed this
process to the detriment of another primary function, fundamental scientific
research.
With the emergence of the society
of knowledge and information, the society of continuous and global scientific
and technical revolution, the society of financial and corporate concentration,
it becomes even more imperative to restore the social function of the public
University be the center of excellence in Fundamental Research.
The basis of Fundamental
scientific research is the organization of faculty PhDs groups or that choose
the path of doctorate in the light of the scientific objectives to pursue, not
for administrative constraints for career progression. These researchers may be
originated from diverse universities and convene around a mission and purpose
of scientific research.
The results of this investigation
should be returned to the University and society through the pursuit, in
parallel, the teaching function and projects of sustainable development.
Creating a scientific elite, framed by the public University, meaning put at the service of the country of its economy and its population, the results of an advanced research that tends to be today suitable for large business conglomerates, through the registration of patents, products, and brands. [24]
Conclusions
Nature shall be included in our
field of moral reflection - our duties, before limited to human beings, shall
be extended to other natural beings. (Leopold, 1949)
The environmental reason recognize:
A planetary
community: (UN,1972)
The principles of
a “common house” and “loyalty” to the earth
The imperative of
dignity and the imperative of perpetual
peace
Enlarges the
concepts of Community and Person (Reagan and
Singer, 1989)
Expands Ethics
concept with the “Land Ethic” and the “Animal Ethics” (Lorenz, 1973)
The "environmental
reason" formulates a new categorical imperative for human action, beyond
the Kantian maximum (Kant,2006) of individual
acting conformed with the principle of a universal law, a new ethical
framework, which stems from the need to configure the human conduct within the
limits that safeguard the continuity of life and its diversity. (Jonas,1984)
And first of all, formulating the imperative of a global ethics to a perpetual peace, because without peace, everything is lost, and first of all, freedom is lost.
References
A Decade of American Foreign
Policy 1941-1949 International Organizations Immunities Act, December 9, 1945. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad034.asp, accessed 1 May 2021
Aristotle (1984). The Complete
Works of Aristotle, English Translation, Jowett, Benjamin, The Revised
Oxford Translation, vol. 2, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Bell, D. (2015). The China
Model Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton
University Press
Caufield. C. (1997). Masters
of Illusion: The World Bank and the Poverty of Nations. Henry Holt &
Co.
CFI’s Financial Modeling and
Valuation Analyst (FMVA) https://corporatefinanceinsti
tute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/rating-agency/ https://fcic.law.stanford.edu/r
eport Accessed 1 May 2021
Chu-En-Lai. Five Principles of
Peaceful Coexistence //www.zhouenlaipeaceinstitute.org/f
ive-principles-of-peace-2/history/
Accessed 1 May 2021
Churchill, W. Sinews of Peace
(Iron Curtain). Churchill Centre. Archived from the original on 5 June
2009. Retrieved 26 February 2007. https://winstonchurchill.org/
resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/the-sinews-of-peace/ Accessed 1 May 2021
Confucius. (2009) Lun YÜ. The
Analects. Translated with and introduction by D.C. Lau, Preface by A.C.
Grayling, London: The Folio Society.
Dias, J. (1961) Estudos de
Antropologia, Volume I, Uma introdução histórica à etnografia portuguesa. Lisboa: Imprensa
Nacional-Casa da Moeda.
Diplomaticsplit-between-the-west-and-china-over-xinjiang-and-human-rights. Jamestown Foundation.
2021 https://jamestown.org/program/the-22-vs-50-diplomatic-split-bet
ween-the-west-and-china-over-xinjiang-and-human-rights/ Accessed 1 May
Omachonu, J and Schultz, D.
(2009). Media Concentration. In The First Amendment Encyclopedia. copyright
2009 by CQ Press, an imprint of SAGE Publications https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1127/media-concentration Accessed 1 May 2021
Environment. United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment A/CONF.48/14 /Rev.1 -June 1972
Stockholm, Sweden
European Commission, Joint
Research Centre (JRC)/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). Emission
Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release version 4.3.1,
2016 http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php? v=431. Accessed
19.02.2017
Friedman, M. (1992). Capitalism
and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Friedman, M. (1975) Two Lucky
People: Memoirs by Milton Friedman, Rose D. Friedman. Appendix A, pp.
591–93. Letter from Friedman to Pinochet, April 21, 1975.
Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of
history? In: The national interest, (16): 3–18. USA
Gates, B. Interview of Bill
Gates, Quartz. By Kevin J.
Delaney February 17, 2017.
https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes/.
Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N.
(1994) Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media.
London: Vintage.
Kant, I. (2006) Toward
Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Edited
and with an introduction by Pauline Kleingeld. Translated by David Colclasure.
With essays by Jeremy Waldron, Michael W. Doyle, and Allen W. Wood. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
James, D. C. (1985). Volume 3, Triumph
and Disaster 1945–1964. The Years of MacArthur. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
ISBN 978-0-395-36004-0. OCLC 36211311.
Jonas, H. (1984) The
Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for the technological
Age. Chicago. Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press, 1
Leopold, A. (1949) A Sand
County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lorenz, K.
(1973) Die acht Todsünden der zivilisierten Manschheit. München/Zürich: Piper
Moran, C. (1968). Winston
Churchill: The Struggle for Survival 1940-1965 (Diaries of Lord Moran).
Edit. Sphere
MacArthur, D. (1951). Letter
to Representative Martin of Massachusetts: (From Congressional Record of
April 5, 1951). Source: Harry S. Truman Library and Museum
Marcuse, H. (2001) The Problem of
Social Change in the Technological Society in Towards a Critical Theory of
Society. Douglas Kellner (ed.) London and New York: Routledge Press. [1961]
Marov, M. Ya. (2013). 150 Years
of Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky. In 21st Century Science and Technology.
Summer. https://21sci-tech.com/Articles_2013/Summer_
2013/Biosphere_Astrobiology.pdf Accessed 1 May
Marx, K. and Engels. F. (1962)
Selected Works, 2 Volumes, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
Milestone Documents [Washington, DC: The
National Archives and Records Administration, 1995] pp. 26–29.
Monroe, J. Message of
President James Monroe at the commencement of the first session of the 18th
Congress (The Monroe Doctrine), 12/02/1823; Presidential Messages of the
18th Congress, ca. 12/02/1823-ca. 03/03/1825; Record Group 46; Records of
the United States Senate, 1789-1990; National Archives.)
Observatory. Deregulation
08 February 2017 EurWORK https://www.eurofound.europ
a.eu/observatories/eurwork/industrial-relations dictionary/deregulation
OECD (1994). The OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Organization for Economic (May 1,
1994). Amazon
Ouimet, J. M. (2003). The Rise
and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet Foreign Policy. Chapel Hill and
London: The University of North Carolina Press. pp. 88–97
Queirós, A. (2018) Challenges and
mission of the Science museums of 3rd generation. In Memoriam
Professor Doutor Fernando Bragança Gil, Revue, Mátria Digital nº5. Santarém
Queirós, A. (2017). Report For
The Democratic Reform of Walfare. Confederation of Commerce and Services of
Portugal. Forum of Services for Modernization,
Reagan, T. and Singer, P. (1989)
Animal Rights and Human Obligations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Roth, K. (2021). Human Rights
Report. HRW https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/
media_2021/01/2021_hrw_world_report.pdf
Singer, P. (1993) Ética Prática.
S. Paulo: Editora Martins Fontes.
Stiglitz, J. (2003), Globalization
and Its Discontents. Penguin; New Ed edition
Tax Justice Network (TJN). https://www.taxjustice.net/ Acessed 1 May 2021
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, adopted by the UN in December 10, 1948 (A/RES/217).
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Accessed 1 May 2021
United Nations 1972. Report of the Conference A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 5-16 June 1972,
Stockholm
[1]Fallacies
are arguments that intentionally present themselves as unfalsifiable, true, and
serious, and that resort to simplistic thoughts and half-truths, quotations,
and false facts, to deceive the critical awareness of the interlocutor; wanting
to seem so evident that they can only be correct. They can also be called
sophistries, which are reasoning malicious, but coated with intellectual and
philosophical varnish, to intimidate or
seduce the interlocutor.
[2]Quoted from initial texts, with successive renovations, from the
international colloquium, Philosophy
in the twentieth century, organized by the Center of Philosophy of the
University of Lisbon, in 2012, under the
title “The dawning of the Environmental Ethics
in the 21st century”, and from the XXIII
World Congress of Philosophy, Athens, in 2013.Revisited in the World Congress of Philosophy on the topic:
“The philosophy of Aristotle, Critique of Environmental Ethics and Moral in the
21st century”, Athens, 2016.
[3]Speaking
on 5 March 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.
[4]In
his book Churchill, The Struggle for Survival.
[6]Letter
to Representative Martin of Massachusetts:(From
Congressional Record of April 5, 1951)
[7]Two Lucky People: Memoirs by
Milton Friedman, Rose D. Friedman. Appendix A, pp. 591–93. Letter from Friedman
to Pinochet, April 21, 1975
[8]Bell, Daniel A. The China Model Political
Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton University Press. 2015
[9]Quoted
from https://jamestown.org/program/the-22-vs-50-diplomatic-split-between-the-west-and-china-over-xinjiang-and-human-rights/. The political analyses of the
two letters are quite different to the authors of the article published
Jamestown Foundation.
[10] Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of HRW, about
the 2021 REPORT.
[11]Milestone Documents [Washington, DC: The National Archives and Records
Administration, 1995] pp. 26–29.
[12]
J. Matthew Ouimet, The Rise, and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet
Foreign Policy. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina
Press. pp. 88–97. 2003
[13]Catherine
Caufield. Masters of Illusion: The World
Bank and the Poverty of Nations, 1997
[14]See
A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 International
Organizations Immunities Act, December 9, 1945
[15] Globalization:
time to look at historic mistakes to plot the future,
by Joseph Stiglitz, in the Guardian Weekly.
[17]
Source: CFI’s Financial Modeling and Valuation Analyst (FMVA), designed
based on over 20 years of financial analyst training experience delivered by
instructors at large global banks and institutions such as BlackRock, Credit
Suisse, HSBC, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citi,
and more
[18]
Source: CFI’s Financial Modeling and Valuation Analyst (FMVA)
The
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) was a ten-member commission
appointed by the leaders of the United States Congress with the goal of
investigating the causes of the financial crisis of 2007–2010
[19]See
in Quartz,
https://qz.com/911968/bill-gates-the-robot-that-takes-your-job-should-pay-taxes/.
[20]
Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in Economics, University Professor at
Columbia University, and Chief Economist of the Roosevelt Institute. His latest
book is Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in
the Era of Trump.
[21] Media Concentration. By John O. Omachonu and David Schultz. In The First
Amendment Encyclopedia.
[22]Consulting
https://wikileaks.org/. Remember the persecution of Julian Assange and the
story of Edward Joseph Snowden an American fugitive, a former Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) employee, and former contractor for the United States government
who copied and leaked highly classified information from the National Security
Agency (NSA) in 2013. His disclosures revealed numerous global surveillance
programs, many run by the NSA and the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance with the
cooperation of telecommunication companies and European governments.
[23]Manufacturing
Consent, by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. Pantheon
Books, 1988. See excerpts from the book in book. https://web.archive.org/web/20070314235027/ http://
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html.
[24]António
dos Santos Queirós. Challenges and mission of the Science museums of 3rd
generation. In
Memoriam Professor Doutor Fernando Bragança Gil, Mátria Digital nº 5
Magazine.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário