The following is an excerpt from the blog of Professor. Vincenzo Cucinotta propose again and hoping it gets entirely the pious widespread.
OBJECT TO capitalist madness
Never before in recent months you feel the need of a new radical politics. On the one hand, the economic crisis pushes the business to a competition for an increasing competitiveness in Globally, it grows with the intensity of other environmental disasters. This year, we have had at least three events really epoch-making, which I remember briefly. The first in time is the pouring of huge amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, due to an incident relating to a drilling at great depth. This was followed, almost simultaneously, unprecedented weather events, at least when you have comparison data. One is dall'anticiclone on Russia, which has caused quite unusual temperatures in the region, as well as a long drought, and this is especially great since point of view of the duration of these conditions. The other event is the huge amount of monsoon rainfall in a wide area stretching from India to China, via Pakistan. In particular, in this country, rainfall has caused flooding that affected a vast area of \u200b\u200bthe country.
It 'obvious that someone may downgrade the events of the episodes until they become marginal, due to current conditions. In truth, there can be no possibility of connecting them to the policy objective, namely to derive these disasters from human activity, as well as socially organized. At the same time, people common sense is hard to believe in coincidences particular, due to the only fatality.
Well, here it poses a huge problem, which can be summarized as follows. Capitalism requires a global race toward ever-increasing growth of GDP. The crisis creates a growing competition, weak demand makes it more difficult to place the goods produced. The competition, in turn, require increased productivity, in order to reduce costs. The final consequence of this logic is that it produces too many goods, and it produces too few people. Then we go to a situation of increasing exploitation of natural resources, and while this is done in the presence of fewer employees. The fact is that even parts of the world in which he had created a worker-oriented labor law, typical of Europe, in this situation find themselves suddenly having to submit to more onerous working conditions, wages declining, at least in value real. All this, as I said, occurs in a context that should discourage an extensive and systematic exploitation of natural resources for the sake of an absolute gravity: the very possibility of human survival.
If on the basis of good reasons, the three environmental disasters I mentioned, it is believed that the dreaded global ecological damage due to human activity has already reached its today, the alert level, and that a perseverance in this systematic destruction of the environment for the sole purpose, after all silly, to be surrounded by more and more objects, then object to the perverse mechanism of increasingly fierce competition and actually pointless is not only reasonable, but also a moral duty, an ability to oppose the collective madness in order to avoid the catastrophe of humanity to which we belong.
As understood, there seems to be the time for responses articulated, of moderation, but it was time to take sides, shouting to his fellows that we are accelerating the train that will take us into a ravine from which it will Unable to save.
What we propose then is a society where there is work for all, that working conditions are humane, that the work schedule is small enough to contain the total production of goods. It 'no use hiding behind a finger, this will inevitably lead to a reduction in consumption, a reduced availability of items, but then we are sure that this is a sacrifice, a worsening of living conditions, and not a life closer to how we are programmed course?
