The Brazilian elite had only two horizons: the European social welfare state, or dynamism, and access to the U.S. consumer, the first identified with civilization and stability, the second with the dynamism and modernity.
The "Getulio" has been our model of social welfare, with a state that assumes the responsibility for economic development and workers' rights. This model has always been rejected by the elite who have benefited industrial expansion push by governments but staunchly maintained their refusal to Getulio (Vargas), considered incompatible with the needs of their representability. The model class alliance that wanted to Getulio, facilitated by the expansion of the internal market and the popular base of support, was never even digested by the industrial bourgeoisie. The same Juscelino Kubitschek
- more moderate political style, as well as having delivered economic hegemony in the hands of foreign capital with the development of the automotive industry - has never been acceptable to the great business Paulista (JK came third in the elections 1955, Adhemar de Barros and behind the candidate uden Távora Juárez).
Joao Goulart ("Jango") became governor when the economic boost was already showing signs of exhaustion, with a clear split between workers and employers who seized the political landscape reflected in a big inflationary bubble. The solution of the conflict was due to violence ("The middle class prefers a violent end rather than endless violence," Marx said in the eighteenth Brumaire). The model installed drastically cut the process of distribution of profit with the expansion of international trade, encouraging capital accumulation based on consumption and exports of the upper classes. The salary adjustments and the intervention of the unions, then produced a honeymoon for the big international and national capital, which could earn him why he had managed during the dictatorship.
The reference was an elite model usamericano free trade with social exclusion and income concentration, a model of economic dynamism in the capital market internationalization and depression of domestic consumption.
Democratization was prevented by the crisis of 1979/80, when the economy stopped growing - in practice for the first time since 1930 - and the debt crisis made sure that the economy was running in export function, with the objective of obtaining the resources to pay its debts - multiplied by the crisis -. The development and social welfare remained a dead letter. The neo-liberal decade
last he finally bury the development, with the central objective of maintaining monetary stability. Democratization did not lead economic expansion or recovery or social improvement in the majority of the population, and neo-liberalism institutionalized this trend, in the face of expectation that inflation control is reflected in the social conditions of the population. This was immediately certain, until the pulse is over, the economy suffered a recession of recent times and the social situation of the people and returned to break down a lot.
Social Democracy came to power in the time of his conversion to neoliberalism beginning in France and then Spain, the main referents of "Toucans" [Brazilian Social NdT], but it brought with it the well-being society, but rather than mercantilist model that has ever known.
With the Lula government to the crisis has come through a newly constructed model, which earned a national consensus to control inflation, but that has not sent the backbone, but one of its dimensions. The specificity of the new model has been the recovery of economic growth structurally articulated with the expansion of the internal market of popular consumption, which necessitated social policies as an element of growth and induction of the guarantee of social rights by the State. Brazil is now building its own path of historical development.
Source - http://www.cartamaior.com.br/templates/postMostrar.cfm?blog_id=1&post_id=626
0 comments:
Post a Comment