Posts com Tag ‘Política’

Presidente da estatal diz que o Lula salvou a estatal de ter partes vendidas, caso os tucanos vencessem a eleição

Roberval Angelo Schincariol e Tatiana Freitas

Seu orixá é Obaluaiê, o “dono da terra”, como revelou à imprensa pela primeira vez nesta entrevista. Mas bem que o baiano José Sérgio Gabrielli poderia ser chamado de “príncipe do mar”. Em seus quase quatro anos à frente da Petrobrás, ele anunciou a conquista da autossuficiência brasileira em petróleo (2006); a descoberta do pré-sal (2007-2008); e a consequente listagem da Petrobrás entre as maiores companhias de energia do mundo.

O que para muitos críticos não passa de um golpe de sorte, para Gabrielli, que assumiu a liderança da maior companhia brasileira no lugar de José Eduardo Dutra, em abril de 2006, o sucesso da Petrobrás é fruto de uma política de governo e só foi possível graças à eleição do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva em 2002 e à sua reeleição em 2006. “O presidente Lula fez a diferença”, disse em entrevista exclusiva à Agência Estado.

Segundo Gabrielli, se o resultado das eleições tivesse sido outro, com a vitória de José Serra em 2002 ou de Geraldo Alckmin em 2006, a Petrobrás teria tomado outro rumo. “Partes da empresa poderiam ter sido privatizadas.” 

Mas Gabrielli também acredita no destino. Segundo ele, “há muita sorte em encontrar petróleo”. Mas não apenas isso. “Você não perfura um poço a 300 quilômetros de distância da costa e a milhares de metros de profundidade apenas confiando que Deus é brasileiro.” Afinal, de acordo com a crença, Obaluaiê foi adotado e criado por Iemanjá, a “rainha do mar”. A seguir, os principais trechos da entrevista:

A “Foreing Policy” publicou uma matéria recentemente questionando o novo marco regulatório do pré-sal, principalmente no que diz respeito à participação do Estado na Petrobrás. Citando os dois possíveis candidatos mais em evidência, a revista afirma que se o governador José Serra vencer as eleições presidenciais de 2010, ele vai tentar reverter isso. Já se a ministra-chefe da Casa Civil, Dilma Rousseff, sair vencedora, as empresas internacionais terão de recorrer à Justiça. O que o sr. tem a dizer sobre isso?

Que a Foreing Policy, uma revista americana, é uma think-tank liberal que tenta influenciar a opinião pública. Uma crítica sobre a presença do Estado em uma empresa vinda da Foreing Policy é normal. O contrário é que seria novidade. Acredito que a proposta do governo para o pré-sal claramente aumenta o papel do Estado. E isso é necessário e importante porque essa é a tendência mundial. E sempre foi na área do petróleo, que é um produto essencialmente vital e estratégico para a vida moderna.

Mas há exceções, como…

Os Estados Unidos não estão ausentes da indústria do petróleo. O Estado americano pode não estar diretamente produzindo, mas está atuando fortemente via estoque regulador, via estímulo às suas empresas, via regulações. No caso brasileiro, me parece que a nova regulação reflete uma realidade distinta da antiga regulação. São diferenças importantes. A primeira é o acesso a capitais. Na década de 90, tínhamos um problema para termos acesso a capitais que hoje não existe. A outra é o acesso à tecnologia. Hoje a Petrobrás, em águas profundas, é a empresa que tem maior mobilização tecnológica e conhecimento, e opera 22% da produção de águas profundas no mundo.

Mas isso não é fruto de um longo processo?

Sim, vem num processo. Primeiro tem um processo de melhoria das condições macroeconômicas. Depois, do controle da tecnologia. E, terceiro, o risco da área exploratória é muito baixo. Hoje você tem essa situação bastante distinta. Anteriormente era uma lei voltada a ajudar e permitir que as empresas privadas capturassem todos os ganhos da atividade do petróleo.

O sr. acredita que se o presidente Lula não tivesse sido eleito em 2002 e reeleito em 2006, a Petrobrás teria chegado ao pré-sal no momento em que chegou?

Essa pergunta é difícil de responder diretamente. Eu diria o seguinte: até 2003, a Petrobrás estava sendo preparada para ter um conjunto de atividades com muita eficiência em vários ramos e com pouco ganho no sistema como um todo e estava sendo inibida no crescimento do seu portfólio de exploração. A partir de 2003, os investimentos aumentam, a Petrobrás tem uma participação mais ativa nos leilões, redefine sua organização interna de forma a ter um fortalecimento das atividades corporativas no conjunto da companhia e acelera a renovação de seus quadros. Isso foi uma mudança de orientação política na Petrobrás. Se seria possível atingir sucesso com a política anterior é difícil dizer. Agora, que o sucesso atual depende das mudanças feitas, isso é certo. Evidentemente que há muita sorte em encontrar petróleo. Mas apenas sorte não é suficiente. Você não perfura um poço a 300 km de distância da costa e a milhares de metros de profundidade só confiando que Deus é brasileiro.

Se o resultado da eleição tivesse sido outro, qual caminho o sr. acha que Petrobrás teria tomado?

Só posso reafirmar que a Petrobrás estava a caminho de se transformar numa empresa muito eficiente separadamente e que perderia a capacidade de integração entre as diversas áreas da companhia. Teria investimento e crescimento menores do que teve. Provavelmente teria menos preocupação com o controle nacional, portanto teria menos impacto no estímulo da indústria brasileira. Teria focado suas atividades em setores diferentes do que foram focados. E o resultado disso é difícil especular qual seria. Seria uma empresa diferente do que é hoje.

O sr. acha que ela poderia ter sido privatizada, por exemplo?

Como um todo, acho difícil. Mas partes dela poderiam (ter sido privatizadas). Seria difícil uma privatização total da Petrobrás, mas partes dela, sim.

Pelo atual valor de mercado, de cerca de US$ 200 bilhões, a Petrobrás é maior que muitos países da América do Sul. Quais sãos os planos da empresa para investimentos internacionais, principalmente nos países vizinhos?

Dos US$ 174 bilhões em investimentos (até 2013), US$ 16 bilhões estão reservados para a área internacional. A maior parte dessa quantia vai para os Estados Unidos. Nós temos nos Estados Unidos 270 blocos exploratórios no Golfo do México e uma refinaria. A nossa maior produção adicional internacional vem da Nigéria. Nosso investimento na América do Sul é em portfólio. Estamos crescendo na distribuição. Compramos redes de distribuição no Paraguai, Uruguai, Chile e Colômbia. Estamos concentrando nos investimentos na Argentina na área de exploração. Estamos iniciando atividades exploratórias no Uruguai. Estamos em processo de avaliação de descobertas de gás no Peru, atividades exploratórias na Colômbia. Basicamente nosso investimento na América Latina é um investimento de manutenção de nosso portfólio.

A saída do Irã foi realmente por motivos puramente técnicos como garante a Petrobrás?

Nós não saímos do Irã ainda. Tínhamos dois poços lá e o contrato terminou. Não entendo por que essa preocupação tão grande com o Irã. Ninguém da indústria do petróleo em sã consciência pode negar que o Irã é uma das maiores áreas de reservas de petróleo no mundo.

Nesse caso, é exatamente por isso a preocupação com o Irã…

Nós vamos manter nossa presença no Irã, mesmo que sem atividade prevista no país. Os poços que perfuramos estavam secos. Não encontramos nada. Paciência.

E para o Iraque, agora que as coisas parecem mais calmas por lá, a Petrobrás tem algum plano?

Não temos absolutamente nada no Iraque. Eles têm lá as preferências deles. O Iraque tem contrato de serviço. E isso não interessa à Petrobrás.

A preocupação mundial com as mudanças climáticas não poderia inviabilizar o pesado investimento atual da empresa no pré-sal a longo prazo, tendo em vista que os países buscam combustíveis considerados limpos para substituir o petróleo?

Com um crescimento da demanda de apenas 1% ao ano em média até 2030, como preveem as pesquisas, haverá a necessidade de se adicionar entre 55 milhões e 65 milhões de barris por dia de produção. E isso praticamente para manter o consumo atual.

Mesmo considerando a entrada de combustíveis limpos?

Sim. Por quê? Porque a economia vai crescer mais que 1% em média. E todo esse crescimento adicional leva em conta os novos combustíveis. De onde vem essa necessidade de 55 milhões a 65 milhões de barris? Do declínio da produção atual. Como há o declínio, haverá a possibilidade de repor esse petróleo.

Não se corre o risco de o preço do petróleo cair muito bem lá na frente com sua possível substituição?

Não. A nossa visão é a de que o petróleo vai cair, sim, mas em termos relativos. Hoje o petróleo representa cerca de 33% da matriz mundial. Lá por 2030, a commodity representará 28%. E quem vai substituir, na nossa visão? O carvão.

O carvão?

Sim, infelizmente, o carvão. E, consequentemente, em 2030, carvão, petróleo e gás natural vão continuar fornecendo 2/3 da matriz energética mundial.

Em quase 20 anos, nenhuma mudança?

Não. Para se ter ideia, os biocombustíveis terão aumento extraordinário neste período. Eles crescerão cerca de 100%.

Isso é uma boa notícia.

Você acha? Eles sairão de 0,4% da matriz energética para 0,9%. Grande diferença!

No blog da Petrobrás, o sr. reclama em um vídeo que os jornalistas perderam o interesse em perguntar sobre os biocombustíveis após o pré-sal…

(Risos) Isso porque vamos investir US$ 2,8 bilhões em biocombustíveis até 2013. Nossa capacidade de biodiesel dobrou. Tínhamos três usinas, com produção de cerca de 300 milhões de metros cúbicos, o que dobrará já no próximo ano. Estamos entrando no etanol, com a compra de participação em outras empresas.

Quais empresas?

Até o momento não temos nenhuma participação em etanol. Queremos comprar empresas o mais breve possível.

O sr. poderia fazer um balanço da Petrobrás nos últimos sete anos de administração petista?

A Petrobrás valia cerca de US$ 14 bilhões em 2003 e hoje vale cerca de US$ 210 bilhões. Hoje, temos um portfólio exploratório em crescimento no Brasil. A Petrobrás tem hoje 46% da sua força de trabalho com menos de nove anos de casa e 53% com mais de 19 anos. Houve uma renovação da força de trabalho dentro da empresa. A Petrobrás fortaleceu a sua estrutura corporativa. Entrou fortemente na área de biocombustíveis. Montou e consolidou a estrutura de gás natural no País. Em 2002 investia US$ 200 milhões por ano em refino. Hoje esse valor é mensal. Ampliou o market-share na BR (distribuidora). Comprou a Liquigás. É hoje a sexta maior empresa de energia do mundo e a segunda maior em petróleo, só perdendo para a Esso. Resumindo: um sucesso!

O sr. afirma então que a Petrobrás é o que é hoje por causa do presidente Lula?

O presidente Lula fez diferença (pausa). Acho que depende muito da orientação do governo, mas se a Petrobrás não tivesse capacidade de fazer, não seria o que é hoje. Mas o orientação clara do governo foi essa. A política de conteúdo nacional renovou a indústria do País. Temos hoje, com relação aos nossos investimentos, 74% de participação brasileira.

O governo vem sendo acusado pela oposição de usar o pré-sal como arma política para 2010…

A oposição tem de criticar sempre. Faz parte da democracia.

O sr. tem algum interesse político?

Não serei candidato, não pretendo ser candidato. Já fui candidato. A última vez em 1990.

Ideologia na Educação?

Publicado: novembro 17, 2009 por Yogi em Capital, Culture, Politics, Tudo
Tags:, ,

Mais presente do que nunca.

Sua morte foi decretada, mas o túmulo nunca foi fechado: a questão ideológica continua muito presente na educação (e também fora dela). E não é demais questionar: é possível haver educação sem ideologia, ou a simples expressão desse desejo já é reveladora de um lugar de onde se vê (e pensa ) o mundo?

Fabiano Curi

 

Berlim, 1989: a queda do muro foi vista por alguns, como o americano Francis Fukuyama, como um marco do fim da história em termos de conflitos ideológicos. O tempo se encarregou de mostrar que esse dia ainda está por vir

 

Há cerca de duas décadas, o mundo testemunhou a implosão do socialismo de Estado encabeçado pela União Soviética. Mais do que isso, passou a viver num planeta que abandonava a bipolaridade das superpotências para caminhar na direção do sistema político-econômico sobrevivente. Sim, sobrevivente, pois para muitos a queda do modelo soviético levava consigo para o túmulo toda a ideologia que o cercava. Comunismo, socialismo, marxismo e todas as suas ramificações pareciam se haver evaporado do cenário geopolítico global, sumiço este que reduziria a pó a existência dos conflitos ideológicos. O mundo viveria sob a égide de um modelo hegemônico e, assim, decretava-se o fim das ideologias.

Desde então, análises ideológicas passaram a ser vistas como objeto de estudo exclusivamente de historiadores que olhavam para o passado na tentativa de caracterizar enfrentamentos de grupos com conjuntos de ideias antagônicas. O esmorecimento de um mundo marcado por ideologias acabou afetando uma instituição que sempre esteve intimamente ligada ao debate ideológico: a escola.

Recentemente, a promulgação de uma nova Lei de Educação na Venezuela inflamou a grita daqueles que se opõem a Hugo Chávez. Os pontos divulgados – o controle do Estado na seleção e supervisão de professores, a proibição de conteúdos que vão contra a soberania do país e algumas propostas amplas de princípios de responsabilidade social, solidariedade e comunhão entre escola, comunidade e família, entre outros – foram vistos como mais um golpe autoritário e totalmente deslocado dos rumos da educação no mundo contemporâneo.

Contudo, o discurso de que tensões ideológicas são obsoletas não deixa de ser também ideológico. Para Marcos Cassim, professor de sociologia da educação da USP de Ribeirão Preto, “ideologia é concepção de mundo e a educação faz parte dessa concepção de mundo; assim, toda a educação é ideológica”. Ele explica a razão disso argumentando que “todas as sociedades constroem o homem a partir de sua concepção de ser humano. O homem se constitui humano e se constitui historicamente”.

Na opinião de Sílvio Gallo, professor da Faculdade de Educação da Unicamp e autor do recente livro Subjetividade, ideologia e educação (Alínea, 2009), o problema começa na definição do próprio conceito de ideologia, que é visto de forma distinta por diferentes autores. “Temos essa ideia de ideologia dominante muito claramente em (Karl) Marx e em alguns autores marxistas”, diz. Ele lembra que, para Marx, há a ideia de um falseamento da realidade por parte das classes dominantes que, ao impor seus valores, buscam fazer com que sejam vistos como únicos e legítimos, enquanto para outros autores, mesmo no campo  marxista, como (Antonio) Gramsci e (Louis) Althusser (leia texto na página 51), a ideologia representa os interesses de uma determinada classe e não, necessariamente, um falseamento.

“Em Marx, há oposição entre ideologia e ciência. A classe dominante, para falsear, produz ideologia, a classe dominada, para se libertar, produz ciência”, desenvolve Gallo. “Nos autores posteriores vamos ter a extensão do conceito de ideologia para dizer que toda a produção de conhecimento por uma determinada classe é ideologia, independentemente de ela ser um falseamento da realidade ou uma afirmação da realidade, dependendo dos interesses do grupo”, completa.

Dermeval Saviani, professor emérito da Faculdade de Educação da Unicamp, ressalta que essa tentativa de evitar os conflitos de ideias fica evidente ainda no início da massificação da educação europeia: “a partir do momento em que a burguesia se consolida no poder, começa a adotar uma ideologia, no sentido de mascaramento da realidade, de naturalização da realidade como se a ordem burguesa fosse a ordem definitiva”.

Gallo lembra que existe também uma outra conceituação na qual uma determinada ideologia social é produzida com a participação consciente ou inconsciente da sociedade como um todo, mesmo que ela atenda a determinadas prerrogativas ou desejos da classe dominante, mas com a aceitação da classe dominada, pois, se não houver reação, há, em algum nível, o consentimento.

Avaliações
Nos últimos anos, o esvaziamento do debate ideológico no campo educacional tem sido marcado pela associação direta da educação com o mercado de trabalho. Ainda que a formação de mão de obra seja uma das finalidades sociais da educação em qualquer regime político, no período recente a perspectiva utilitarista do espaço escolar ganhou muita força.
Entre os indicadores educacionais que podem ser apreciados, há hoje em dia muita ênfase naqueles que relacionam escolaridade com renda e empregabilidade. Assim, muitos dos investimentos em educação só são justificados quando garantem saldos significativos na produtividade e na renda.

Na avaliação de Saviani, a educação sofre a “determinação das exigências de mercado, que envolve a busca de resultados com o mínimo dispêndio. Os investimentos em educação estão subordinados à busca de resultados e os resultados são aferidos pelos indicadores de mercado”.

Para medir os efeitos da educação na vida das pessoas e no funcionamento da sociedade, os anos de reforma do Estado democrático foram ricos na proliferação de sistemas de avaliação de escolas, professores e estudantes. No Brasil, por exemplo, durante o governo de Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a educação teve papel central e, dentro das políticas de universalização da Educação Básica, criaram-se mecanismos que buscavam de alguma forma mensurar a qualidade do ensino. Alvo de muitas críticas da oposição na época, tais políticas, com algumas mudanças pontuais, foram preservadas pelo governo Lula e, ainda que possam existir debates acerca das metodologias empregadas, as avaliações não são mais questionadas. De acordo com Odair Sass, psicólogo e professor do programa de educação da PUC-SP, as avaliações servem para “definir o que é funcional e o que é disfuncional para tentar consertar os problemas, mas não é colocado em questão o modelo de educação”.

Fernando Veloso, economista e professor do Ibmec-RJ que co-organizou o livro Educação básica no Brasil: construindo o país do futuro (Campus, 2009), argumenta que “a mudança de política de avaliações não acontece apenas no Brasil, é uma tendência mundial, e eu não vejo ideologia nisso”. Ele lembra que esse movimento começou nos Estados Unidos, e agora acontece em outros lugares “a ideia de que você tem de mensurar de alguma forma a qualidade da educação”.
Veloso recorda que existiam no Brasil anteriormente vários indicadores de quantidade, como taxa de
frequência, de matrícula e índice de escolaridade, mas que não havia uma medida de qualidade como as que foram implantadas nas últimas duas décadas.

O professor do Ibmec-RJ cita o exemplo do que aconteceu nos Estados Unidos no período recente: “Em seu governo, Bush criou o No child left behind, um sistema de responsabilização, ou seja, você não só mede os resultados, mas responsabiliza as escolas pelo resultado. Isso não quer dizer culpar, mas saber qual é a contribuição da escola no contexto dela e estabelecer premiações e punições”. O professor conta que, atualmente, “Obama, do partido adversário e com uma visão de mundo completamente diferente, deu um nome diferente para o programa, mas que, na essência, é muito parecido. Ele aprofundou e corrigiu alguns problemas do programa de Bush.”

Veloso aponta que a nova administração está estabelecendo padrões mínimos de qualidade, pois lá os estados têm autonomia para fazer o sistema de avaliação e de responsabilização. “Alguns fizeram um programa bom e outros, um programa fraco.” O economista complementa seu exemplo dizendo que esses sistemas não são ideológicos, pois o governo atual tem dado grande apoio às charter schools, que são escolas públicas com a gestão a cargo de organizações não governamentais ou mesmo do sistema privado, o que é visto em qualquer lugar do mundo como “atividade de mercado”, diz ele.

“Não vejo ideologia nos Estados Unidos, mas sim a ideia de que você tem de mensurar e fazer o possível para melhorar”, avalia. “E acho que no Brasil é igual: se pegarmos o governo Lula, talvez tirando os dois primeiros anos nos quais houve um desvio da atenção ao ensino básico que era dada no governo anterior mas que depois a retomou, no fundo, mesmo que ele não reconheça, o governo atual tem dado continuidade e aprofundado políticas adotadas no governo Fernando Henrique.”

Veloso afirma que tais medidas são políticas de Estado, “o que não quer dizer que educadores e economistas concordem, mas acho que há um certo consenso de que qualquer política educacional bem feita tem de avaliar o resultado e usar essa avaliação para aprimorar”. “É uma questão de princípio e não de ideologia”, conclui.

José Leon Crochik, professor da Instituto de Psicologia da USP, também acredita que “estamos na era das grandes avaliações, não só no Brasil, mas em todo o mundo”. E pondera que “isso é muito ruim quando se cria um ranking que torna a escola uma questão de mercado, mas, por outro lado, há uma preocupação com o índice de qualidade e com metas a serem perseguidas”.

Escola e Estado
A determinação dos modelos de educação pelo Estado, ainda que seja para, na abordagem de certos espectros políticos, servir aos interesses privados, coloca nas mãos dos governos um importante instrumento ideológico. Em regimes despóticos, a ingerência do Estado é mais perceptível, mas ela não deixa de acontecer também em sistemas políticos democráticos.

Marcos Cassim problematiza que “se a escola não está sob a tutela do Estado, a sociedade não a reconhece, pois não há um certificado”. “A escola não apenas produz o conhecimento, mas também o certifica.”

Entretanto, ele enfatiza que se confunde educação com escola. “Escola é uma instituição do Estado e a educação é processo. A escola como aparelho do Estado é organizada de acordo com a visão desse Estado e das classes dominantes, mas no interior da escola acontecem processos diversos, às vezes não como afirmação, mas como negação”, explica.

Para a professora da Faculdade de Educação da Universidade de Passo Fundo Rosimar Esquisani, é possível haver contraideologia em relação ao Estado. “No Rio Grande do Sul, temos a gestão democrática do ensino público que tem dado certo em muitas instituições de ensino”, revela. A escolha de diretores, a descentralização administrativa e a participação da comunidade nas decisões da escola podem alimentar ideologias muitas vezes contrárias ao que é de interesse do Estado ou de grupos dominantes.

O venezuelano Hugo Chávez: proposta de lei busca introduzir um maior controle da educação por parte do estado

Vale ainda ressaltar que muitas escolas hoje estão aparelhadas com redes de computadores e atendem a um alunado cada vez mais inserido em realidades tecnológicas que dividem espaço com conteúdos preparados pelo professor, com o material didático e com as diretrizes da escola. Ainda que a maior parte dos modelos educacionais se sustente na lógica livresca e do professor como guardião do conhecimento, os canais de consulta ao redor e dentro da escola são mais numerosos do que em outros tempos.

Sílvio Gallo acredita igualmente que a educação também pode produzir contraideologia o tempo todo, mesmo no espaço da escola. Ele observa que “na medida em que a educação é tratada como coisa pública, existe o lado importante do investimento do Estado na formação dos cidadãos e também o controle efetivo que o Estado exerce”. Contudo, ressalta que “ao mesmo tempo que isso acontece, nós temos no âmbito das relações cotidianas da escola reações por parte dos professores, dos estudantes e do corpo diretivo. Não há uma assimilação direta e acrítica por parte desses indivíduos”.

Para Gallo, nenhum modelo progride se não houver uma aceitação de todas as esferas envolvidas na educação, principalmente do docente. “O professor é o verdadeiro ator desse processo todo. Uma política educacional só acontece se o professor a assumir e a realizar.”

Professores ideológicos
No cenário da educação brasileira é muito comum emergirem críticas a professores que expõem dentro da sala de aula suas afinidades ideológicas. Não são poucos os que defendem que a escola deve manter uma postura neutra e ensinar o que deve ser ensinado sem pender para discursos políticos. Mas será que a neutralidade na educação é atingível ou, até, desejável?

“O que vemos nessas críticas ao professor ideológico são pessoas de extrema-direita criticando professores de extrema-esquerda ou pessoas de extrema-esquerda criticando professores de extrema-direita”, crê Sílvio Gallo. Para a sua colega da Faculdade de Educação da Unicamp Ana Lúcia Goulart de Faria, “todo conhecimento é engajado, seja para as coisas melhorarem para todos, seja para melhorarem só para alguns.”

Já José Leon Crochik alerta que “quando a educação se pretende neutra, equidistante, como se fosse possível abrir mão de si mesma e assumir um lugar imaginário sobre todo o mundo, aí se esposa talvez uma das piores ideologias”.

No ponto de vista de Odair Sass, as críticas aos “professores ideológicos” acontecem porque “a ideologia não é vista na própria sequência pedagógica”, ou seja, nas políticas educacionais, no material didático, na infraestrutura da escola. “Ela é individualizada na figura do professor.”

Marcos Cassim identifica a ideia de neutralidade na educação como uma herança do pensamento positivista. Para ele, mesmo que a escola não se envolva em questões políticas, principalmente de política partidária, é preciso pensar a política como a capacidade de contribuir nas decisões.

Saviani também descarta a possibilidade de uma educação em que a questão ideológica não esteja presente. “Não existe conhecimento desinteressado. A ideologia é um elemento integrante da vida humana. O homem age sobre a natureza para transformá-la no interesse de sua própria sobrevivência. Ele conhece para dominar, conhecimento é poder.”

Gallo acrescenta um aspecto desse processo: a formação de docentes. “A gente não tem homogeneidade na formação de professores. Vemos muitas críticas à universidade pública dizendo que formam professores ideológicos, que elas não preparam tecnicamente o professor, mas sim politicamente. Mas será que faz sentido uma formação estritamente técnica do professor? Uma boa formação técnica não está desvinculada de uma boa formação política e vice-versa”, reflete.

A discussão, entretanto, recai sobre a capacidade de mediar debates e tensões ideológicas dos professores que se formam. Crochik nota que “a formação dos professores de uma maneira geral é muito imediata, concreta, precária, pouco afeita ao raciocínio, à imaginação, àquilo que seria próprio de um homem formado”.

Os problemas de preparo desses professores acabam colocando na sala de aula profissionais acríticos ou doutrinários, o que, evidentemente, não é nada vantajoso para qualquer modelo de educação que se pretenda plural. “Não sou favorável a defender doutrinas na escola, mas sim que se passem as ideias dos pensadores de cada doutrina. Sou partidário da leitura do movimento da sociedade e das contradições visíveis nela”, revela Crochík.

E como ficam os estudantes nesse processo de enfrentamento ideológico? Disse certa vez o crítico literário e cultural galês Raymond Williams sobre o processo de alfabetização na Europa depois das revoluções burguesas: “não há como ensinar uma pessoa a ler a Bíblia sem também ensiná-la a ler a imprensa radical”.

Video de 4 horas, muito bacana da BBC4 (um bocado antigo) que mostra um pouco da psicanálise de massas desde o início do século e sua aplicação pelo Estado americano no pós-guerra. Mind control. Freud. Psicanálise. Ego. Strange forces. Muito bom.

Vídeos do VodPod não estão mais disponíveis.

more about “The Story of the Self – 1/4“, posted with vodpod

Famiglia

Publicado: junho 29, 2009 por Yogi em Capital, Culture, Non Sense, Politics, Tudo
Tags:, , , , ,

por Tutty Vasques, Seção: Ô, raça! 12:28:52.

Esse negócio de beneficiar neto, sobrinho, cunhada, sogra ou irmão já era! O Congresso acaba de estabelecer um novo grau de parentesco funcional:

O pai do novo diretor-geral do Senado é primo do suplente de Heráclito Fortes.

Entendeu?

Então repete!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian socialism

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6] so that direct control of thesemeans of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[7]

Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unionsworkers’ councilsmunicipalities, citizens’ assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy.[8] Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable.[9]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communismanarchist collectivismanarcho-syndicalism,[10]mutualism,[11] social ecology,[12] autonomism and council communism).[13] Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism[14] and in particular socialist anarchism.[15][16]

Contents

[edit]Overview

Noam Chomsky, a noted libertarian socialist.

Libertarian socialism is an ideology with diverse interpretations, though some general commonalities can be found in its many incarnations. Its proponents advocate a worker-oriented system of distribution that radically departs from capitalist economics (socialism).[17] They proposed that this economic system be executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism.[18] Adherents attempt to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the socialization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, because they view capitalist property relations as forms of domination that are antagonistic to individual freedom.[19]

The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French wordlibertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[20] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[21] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian “must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.”[22]

In a chapter recounting the history of libertarian socialism, radical economist Robin Hahnel relates that thus far the period where libertarian socialism has had its greatest impact was at the end of the 19th century through the first four decades of the twentieth century.

“Early in the twentieth century, libertarian socialism was as powerful a force as social democracy and communism. The Libertarian International – founded at the Congress of Saint Imier a few days after the split between Marxist and libertarians at the congress of the Socialist International held in The Hague in 1872 – competed successfully against social democrats and communists alike for the loyalty of anticapitalist activists, revolutionaries, workers, unions and political parties for over fifty years. Libertarian socialists played a major role in the Russian revolutions of 1905and 1917. Libertarian socialists played a dominant role in the Mexican Revolution of 1911. Twenty years after World War I was over, libertarian socialists were still strong enough to spearhead the social revolution that swept across Republican Spain in 1936 and 1937.”[23]

[edit]Anti-capitalism

Red rose Red flag
v d e

See also: Anti-capitalism

Libertarian socialists assert that when power is exercised, as exemplified by the economic, social, or physical dominance of one individual over another, the burden of proof is always on the authoritarian to justify their action as legitimate when taken against its effect of narrowing the scope of human freedom.[24] Typical examples of legitimate exercise of power would include the use of physical force to rescue someone from being injured by an oncoming vehicle, or self-defense. Libertarian socialists typically oppose rigid and stratified structures of authority, be they politicaleconomic, or social.[25]

Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power, that an accumulation of economic power in the hands of a few and the centralization of political power both reduce the bargaining power—and thus the liberty of the other individuals in society.[26] To put it another way, capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles concentrate economic power in the hands of those who own the most capital. Libertarian socialism aims to distribute power, and thus freedom, more equally amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and free-market libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one’s degree of freedom is affected by one’s economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter focus on freedom of choice. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize “free creativity” in a society in preference to “free enterprise.”[27]

Libertarian socialists believe if freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy, voluntary federation, and popular autonomy in all aspects of life,[28] including physical communities and economic enterprises.

Many libertarian socialists argue that large-scale voluntary associations should manage industrial manufacture, while workers retain rights to the individual products of their labor.[29] As such, they see a distinction between the concepts of “private property” and “personal possession”. Whereas “private property” grants an individual exclusive control over a thing whether it is in use or not, and regardless of its productive capacity, “possession” grants no rights to things that are not in use.[30]

[edit]Opposition to the state

Part of the Politics series on
Anarchism
"Circle-A" anarchy symbol
Anarchism Portal
Politics portal
v d e

See also: Anti-statism

Libertarian socialists regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression, leading many to oppose the state.

In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary associations (usually collectivescommunescooperativescommons, or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations.[31] Spanish anarchism is a major example of such federations in practice. Contemporary examples of libertarian socialist organizational and decision-making models in practice include a number of anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements[32] including: Zapatista Councils of Good Government and the Global Indymedia network (which covers 45 countries on 6 continents). There are also many examples of indigenous societies around the world whose political and economic systems can be accurately described as anarchist or libertarian socialist, each of which is unique and uniquely suited to the culture that birthed it.[33] For libertarians, that diversity of practice within a framework of common principles is proof of the vitality of those principles and of their flexibility and strength.

Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example. Supporters often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of the scientific method comes from its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions, rather than dogma and predetermined predictions.

Although critics claim that they are avoiding questions they cannot answer, libertarian socialists believe that a methodological approach to exploration is the best way to achieve their social goals. To them, dogmatic approaches to social organization are doomed to failure; and thus reject Marxist notions oflinear and inevitable historical progression. Noted anarchist Rudolf Rocker once stated, “I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal” (The London Years, 1956).

Because libertarian socialism encourages exploration and embraces a diversity of ideas rather than forming a compact movement, there have arisen inevitable controversies over individuals who describe themselves as libertarian socialists but disagree with some of the core principles of libertarian socialism. For example, Peter Hain interprets libertarian socialism as favoring radical decentralization of power without going as far as the complete abolition of the state[34] and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky supports dismantling all forms of unjustified social or economic power, while also emphasizing that state intervention should be supported as a temporary protection while oppressive structures remain in existence.

Proponents are known for opposing the existence of states or government and refusing to participate in coercive state institutions. Indeed, in the past many refused to swear oaths in court or to participate in trials, even when they faced imprisonment[35] or deportation.[36]

[edit]Violent and non-violent means

Some libertarian socialists see violent revolution as necessary in the abolition of capitalist society. Along with many others, Errico Malatesta argued that the use of violence was necessary; as he put it in Umanità Nova (no. 125, September 6, 1921):

It is our aspiration and our aim that everyone should become socially conscious and effective; but to achieve this end, it is necessary to provide all with the means of life and for development, and it is therefore necessary to destroy with violence, since one cannot do otherwise, the violence which denies these means to the workers.[37]

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued in favor of a non-violent revolution. The progression towards violence in anarchism stemmed, in part, from the massacres of some of the communes inspired by the ideas of Proudhon and others. Many anarcho-communists began to see a need for revolutionary violence to counteract the violence inherent in both capitalism and government.[38]

[edit]Political roots

As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie stated in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism has:

…its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)

That is, anarchism arose as a cross between socialism and liberalism, incorporating the anti-capitalist attitude of socialists and the anti-statist, what would today be called libertarian, attitude of classical liberalismPierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is often considered the father of modern anarchism, coined the phrase “Property is theft” to describe part of his view on the complex nature of ownership in relation to freedom. When he said property is theft, he was referring to the capitalist who he believed stole profit from laborers. For Proudhon, the capitalist’s employee was “subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience.”[39]

Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.[40] Outside the United States, “libertarian” generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies.[41] For these reasons the term “libertarian socialism” is today almost synonymous with anarchism, outside of the US the term “libertarian socialism” would be considered redundant.

Back in the United States, Henry George spearheaded the Single Tax Movement, which sought socialism via progressive taxation, with tax only on natural resources. This might be seen as a predecessor to libertarian socialism trends there.

Libertarian socialism has its roots in both classical liberalism and socialism, though it is often in conflict with liberalism (especially neoliberalism and right-libertarianism) and authoritarianState socialism simultaneously. While libertarian socialism has roots in both socialism and liberalism, different forms have different levels of influence from the two traditions. For instancemutualist anarchism is more influenced by liberalism while communist and syndicalist anarchism are more influenced by socialism. It is interesting to note, however, that mutualist anarchism has its origins in 18th and 19th century European socialism (such as Fourierian socialism)[42][43] while communist and syndicalist anarchism has its earliest origins in early 18th century liberalism (such as the French Revolution).[44]

[edit]Conflict with Marxism

Mikhail Bakunin, 1814-1876.

In rejecting both capitalism and the state, some libertarian socialists align themselves with anarchists in opposition to both capitalist representative democracy and to authoritarian forms of Marxism. Although anarchists and Marxists share an ultimate goal of a stateless society, anarchists criticise most Marxists for advocating a transitional phase under which the state is used to achieve this aim. Nonetheless, libertarian Marxist tendencies such asautonomist Marxism and council communism have historically been intertwined with the anarchist movement. Anarchist movements have come into conflict with both capitalist and Marxist forces, sometimes at the same time, as in the Spanish Civil War, though as in that war Marxists themselves are often divided in support or opposition to anarchism. Other political persecutions under bureaucratic parties have resulted in a strong historical antagonism between anarchists and libertarian Marxists on the one hand and Leninist Marxists and their derivatives such as Maoists on the other. In recent history, however, libertarian socialists have repeatedly formed temporary alliances with Marxist-Leninist groups for the purposes of protest against institutions they both reject.

Part of this antagonism can be traced to the International Workingmen’s Association, the First International, a congress of radical workers, where Mikhail Bakunin, who was fairly representative of anarchist views, and Karl Marx, whom anarchists accused of being an “authoritarian”, came into conflict on various issues. Bakunin’s viewpoint on the illegitimacy of the state as an institution and the role of electoral politics was starkly counterposed to Marx’s views in the First International. Marx and Bakunin’s disputes eventually led to Marx taking control of the First International and expelling Bakunin and his followers from the organization. This was the beginning of a long-running feud and schism between libertarian socialists and what they call “authoritarian communists”, or alternatively just “authoritarians”.

Some Marxists have formulated views that closely resemble syndicalism, and thus express more affinity with anarchist ideas. Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism such as the council communism of Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky’s Notes on Anarchism,[45] he suggests the possibility “that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a ‘vanguard’ party, or a State bureaucracy.”

Autonomist MarxismNeo-Marxism and Situationist theory are also regarded as being anti-authoritarian variants of Marxism that are firmly within the libertarian socialist tradition. Similarly,William Morris is regarded as both a libertarian socialist and a Marxist.[citation needed]

[edit]Notable libertarian socialist tendencies

[edit]Mutualism

Proudhon and his children, by Gustave Courbet (1865).

Mutualism is a political and economic theory largely associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon was in favor of private ownership of the means of production for small enterprises, but in large scale enterprises supported replacing wage labour by workers’ co-operatives, arguing “it is necessary to form an ASSOCIATION among workers . . . because without that, they would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two . . . castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society.”[46] Mutualists believe that a free labor market would allow for conditions of equal income in proportion to exerted labor.[47] As Jonathan Beecher puts it, Proudhon’s aim was to, “emancipate labor from the constraints imposed by capital”.[48]

Proudhon supported individual possession of land rather than community ownership. However, Proudhon believed that an individual only had a right to land while he was using or occupying it. If the individual ceases doing so, it reverts to unowned land.[49]Mutualists hold a labor theory of value, arguing that in exchange labor should always be worth “the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility,”[47] and considering anything less to be exploitation, theft of labor, or usury.

Mutualists oppose the institutions by which individuals gain income through loans, investments, and rent, as they believe the income received through these activities is not in direct accord with labor spent.[47] In place of these capitalist institutions they advocatelabor-owned cooperative firms and associations.[50] Mutualists advocate mutual banks, owned by the workers, that do not charge interest on secured loans. Most mutualists believe that anarchy should be achieved gradually rather than through revolution.[51]

Worker cooperatives such as the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation follow an economic model similar to that of mutualism. The model followed by the corporation WL Gore and Associates, inventor of Gore-Tex fabrics, is also similar to mutualism as there is no chain of command and salaries are determined collectively by the workers.

G.D.H. Cole‘s guild socialism was similar to mutualism.[52] Today, mutualism’s stress on worker association is similar to the more developed modern theory of Participatory Economics, although Participatory Economists do not believe in markets.

Mutualist anarchist ideas continue to have influence today, even if indirectly. Many modern day cooperatives are influenced directly or indirectly by economic mutualism that became popular in the late 19th century.[53]

Some individualist anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, were influenced by Proudhon’s Mutualism, but unlike Proudhon, they did not call for “association” in large enterprises.[54]

[edit]Anarchist communism

Main article: Anarchist communism

Anarchist communism was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International, by Carlo CafieroErrico MalatestaAndrea Costa, and other ex-Mazzinian republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences from standard anarchism explicit until after the latter’s death.[55] In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International (which was actually held in a forest outside Florence, due to police activity), they declared the principles of anarcho-communism, beginning with:

“The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. The federal congress at Florence has eloquently demonstrated the opinion of the Italian International on this point…”

This report was made in an article by Malatesta and Cafiero in the (Swiss) Jura federation‘s bulletin later that year. Cafiero notes, in Anarchie et Communisme, that private property in the product of labor will lead to unequal accumulation of capital, and therefore undesirable class distinctions.

Anarcho-communists hold that the liberation of the individual, as well as the abolition of wage slavery and the State, requires the introduction of a free distribution economy, and therefore the abolition of the market.[56] In this belief they are contrasted with some anarchists and libertarian socialists who advocate collective ownership with market elements and sometimes barter. Anarcho-communists assert that a gift economy can be operated by collectives through direct democracy.

As Peter Kropotkin put it, “We must recognize, and loudly proclaim, that every one, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, THE RIGHT TO LIVE, and that society is bound to share amongst all, without exception, the means of existence at its disposal.” (Conquest of Bread ch. 3)

[edit]Anarcho-syndicalism

Main article: Anarcho-syndicalism

Anarcho-syndicalism is a branch of anarchism which focuses on the labor movement.[57] Anarcho-syndicalists view labor unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the State with a new society democratically self-managed by workers.

The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are:

  1. Workers’ solidarity
  2. Direct action
  3. Workers’ self-management

Flag used by Anarcho-syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists.

Workers’ solidarity means that anarcho-syndicalists believe all workers—no matter their racegender, or ethnic group—are in a similar situation in regard to their boss (class consciousness). Furthermore, it means that, within capitalism, any gains or losses made by some workers from or to bosses will eventually affect all workers. Therefore, to liberate themselves, all workers must support one another in their class conflict.

Anarcho-syndicalists believe that only direct action—that is, action concentrated on directly attaining a goal, as opposed to indirect action, such as electing a representative to a government position—will allow workers to liberate themselves.[58]

Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that workers’ organizations (the organizations that struggle against the wage system, which, in anarcho-syndicalist theory, will eventually form the basis of a new society) should be self-managing. They should not have bosses or “business agents”; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves.

Rudolf Rocker was one of the most popular voices in the anarcho-syndicalist movement. He outlined a view of the origins of the movement, what it sought, and why it was important to the future of labor in his 1938 pamphlet Anarcho-Syndicalism.

The International Workers Association is an international anarcho-syndicalist federation of various labor unions from different countries. The Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajoplayed and still plays a major role in the Spanish labor movement. It was also an important force in the Spanish Civil War.

[edit]Council communism

Main article: Council Communism

Council communism was a radical Left movement originating in Germany and the Netherlands in the 1920s. Its primary organization was the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD). Council communism continues today as a theoretical and activist position within Marxism, and also within libertarian socialism. The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of Social democracy and Leninist communism, is that workers’ councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural and legitimate form of working class organisation and government power. This view is opposed to the reformist and Bolshevik stress on vanguard partiesparliaments, or the State.

The core principle of council communism is that the state and the economy should be managed by workers’ councils, composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run “bureaucratic socialism”. They also oppose the idea of a “revolutionary party”, since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers’ democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers’ councils.

The Russian word for council is “soviet,” and during the early years of the revolution worker’s councils were politically significant in Russia. It was to take advantage of the aura of workplace power that the word became used by Lenin for various political organs. Indeed, the name “Supreme Soviet,” by which the parliament was called; and that of the Soviet Union itself make use of this terminology, but they do not imply any decentralization.

Furthermore, council communists held a critique of the Soviet Union as a capitalist state, believing that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia became a “bourgeois revolution” when a party bureaucracy replaced the old feudal aristocracy. Although most felt the Russian Revolution was working class in character, they believed that, since capitalist relations still existed (because the workers had no say in running the economy), the Soviet Union ended up as a state capitalist country, with the state replacing the individual capitalist. Thus, council communists support workers’ revolutions, but oppose one-party dictatorships.

Council communists also believed in diminishing the role of the party to one of agitation and propaganda, rejected all participation in elections or parliament, and argued that workers should leave the reactionary trade unions and form one big revolutionary union.

[edit]Within the political mainstream

There was a strong libertarian current in the British labour movement and the term “libertarian socialist” has been applied to a number of democratic socialists, including some prominent members of the British Labour Party. The Socialist League was formed in 1885 by William Morris and others critical of the authoritarian socialism of the Social Democratic Federation. It was involved in the New Unionism, the rank and file union militancy of the 1880s-90s which anticipated syndicalism in some key ways (Tom Mann, a New Unionist leader, was one of the first British syndicalists). The Socialist League was dominated by anarchists by the 1890s.[59]

The Independent Labour Party, formed at that time, drew more on the Non-Conformist religious traditions in the British working class than on Marxist theory, and had a libertarian strain. Others in the tradition of the ILP, and described as libertarian socialists, have been Nye BevanMichael FootRobin Cook, and most importantly, G. D. H. Cole. Labour minister Peter Hainhas written in support of libertarian socialism, identifying an axis involving a “bottom-up vision of socialism, with anarchists at the revolutionary end and democratic socialists [such as himself] at its reformist end”, as opposed to the axis of state socialism with Marxist-Leninists at the revolutionary end and social democrats at the reformist end.[60] Defined in this way, libertarian socialism in the contemporary political mainstream is distinguished from modern social democracy principally by its political decentralism rather than by its economics. Katja Kipping of DresdenGermany is an example of a contemporary libertarian socialist politician operating within a mainstream government.

[edit]Within the New Left

Main article: New Left

The emergence of the New Left in the 1950s and 1960s led to a revival of interest in libertarian socialism.[61] The New Left’s critique of the Old Left‘s authoritarianism was associated with a strong interest in personal liberty, autonomy (see the thinking of Cornelius Castoriadis) and led to a rediscovery of older socialist traditions, such as left communismcouncil communism, and the Industrial Workers of the World. The New Left also led to a revival of anarchism. Journals like Radical America and Black Mask in America, SolidarityBig Flame and Democracy & Nature, succeeded by The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy,[62] in the UK, introduced a range of left libertarian ideas to a new generation. Social ecologyautonomism and, more recently, participatory economics (parecon), and Inclusive Democracy emerged from this.

[edit]Social ecology

Main article: Social ecology

Social ecology is closely related to the work and ideas of Murray Bookchin and influenced by anarchist Peter Kropotkin. Social ecologists assert that the present ecological crisis has its roots in human social problems, and that the domination of human-over-nature stems from the domination of human-over-human.[63]

Politically, social ecologists advocate a network of directly democratic citizens’ assemblies organized in a confederal fashion. This approach is called Libertarian Municipalism. Economically, social ecologists favour libertarian communism and the principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”[citation needed]

[edit]Libertarian socialism in modern times

Libertarian socialists in the early 21st century have been involved in the squatter movement; social centersinfoshops; anti-poverty groups such as OCAP and Food Not Bombstenants’unions; housing cooperativesintentional communities generally and egalitarian communities; anti-sexist organizing; grassroots media initiatives; digital media and computer activism; experiments in participatory economicsanti-racist and anti-fascist groups like Anti-Racist Action and Anti-Fascist Action; activist groups protecting the rights of immigrants and promoting the free movement of people, such as the No Border network and No One is Illegalworker co-operativescountercultural and artist groups; and the peace movement etc.

Libertarian Socialists have, also, an MP in Turkish Parliament; Ufuk Uras, selected in 2007 General Elections in Turkey.[64]

[edit]Criticism of libertarian socialism

Some capitalist libertarians argue that freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another, and that promoting equality (as valued by socialism) will inherently require restrictions on liberty (as valued by libertarianism), forcing the society to choose one or the other as their primary value. The Kurt Vonnegut story “Harrison Bergeron“, in which equality is enforced by imposing physical and mental handicaps on overachievers, can be seen as illustrating this point through hyperbole (though Vonnegut’s own belief in socialism is a point of interest).[65]

Libertarian socialists typically dismiss the perceived contradiction between freedom and equality as a red herringNoam Chomsky states that, “human talents vary considerably, within a fixed framework that is characteristic of the species and that permits ample scope for creative work, including the appreciation of the creative achievements of others. This should be a matter of delight rather than a condition to be abhorred.”[66]

Other libertarian philosophers (often referred to as liberals, in the classical sense) such as Frederic BastiatLudwig von MisesMurray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, stress that liberty is a state of affairs in which one is free from the unjustified aggression of others, and that any understanding of liberty must be grounded in natural rights – and especially property rights. Thus, they argue that absolute freedom for all is not a contradiction, and that the abolition of natural rights (including property rights) would, by definition, also be the abolition of liberty.[67][68][69] As Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, “The continued existence of society depends upon private property.”[70]

Libertarian socialists believe that this criticism stems from a misconception that conflates simple possession with private property as a legal and social institution. For libertarian socialists, the latter produces exploitation and oppression (Proudhon’s “theft” and “despotism”) and so reduces individual freedom for the working class to the ability to change masters.[71] As such, they argue, liberalism fails to understand how private property undermines liberty.[72] For libertarian socialists, “[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst.”[73]

[edit]Libertarian socialist periodicals

[edit]See also

(sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved (or at least drastically reduced in scope), and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.[5]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonviolence is a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of physical violence. As such, nonviolence is an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it. Practitioners of nonviolence may use diverse methods in their campaigns for social change, including critical forms of education and persuasion, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, and targeted communication via mass media.

In modern times, nonviolence has been a powerful tool for social protest. Mahatma Gandhi led a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India win its independence in 1947. About 10 years later, Martin Luther King adopted Gandhi’s nonviolent methods in his struggle to win civil rights for African Americans. Then in the 1960s César Chávez organized a campaign of nonviolence to protest the treatment of farm workers in California. As Chavez once explained, “Nonviolence is not inaction. It is not for the timid or the weak. It is hard work, it is the patience to win.”[1] Another recent nonviolent movement was the “Velvet Revolution“, a nonviolent revolution in Czechoslovakia that saw the overthrow of the Communist government in 1989.[2] It is seen as one of the most important of the Revolutions of 1989.

The 14th and current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. Dalai Lama said nonviolence is the only way progress can be made with China.[3][4]

The term “nonviolence” is often linked with or even used as a synonym for pacifism; however, the two concepts are fundamentally different. Pacifism denotes the rejection of the use of violence as a personal decision on moral or spiritual grounds, but does not inherently imply any inclination toward change on a sociopolitical level. Nonviolence on the other hand, presupposes the intent of (but does not limit it to) social or political change as a reason for the rejection of violence. Also, a person may advocate nonviolence in a specific context while advocating violence in other contexts.

Forms

Advocates of nonviolence believe cooperation and consent are the roots of political power: all regimes, including bureaucratic institutions, financial institutions, and the armed segments of society (such as the military and police); depend on compliance from citizens.[5] On a national level, the strategy of nonviolence seeks to undermine the power of rulers by encouraging people to withdraw their consent and cooperation. The forms of nonviolence draw inspiration from both religious or ethical beliefs and political analysis. Religious or ethically based nonviolence is sometimes referred to as principled, philosophical, or ethical nonviolence, while nonviolence based on political analysis is often referred to as tactical, strategic, or pragmatic nonviolence. Commonly, both of these dimensions may be present within the thinking of particular movements or individuals.[6]

Philosophical

Buddha, known for his theory of nonviolence

Mahavira,To liberate one’s self, Mahavira taught the necessity of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. Right conduct includes five great vows out of which first is Nonviolence (Ahimsa) – to cause no harm to any living being in any manner

Love of the enemy, or the realization of the humanity of all people, is a fundamental concept of philosophical nonviolence. The goal of this type of nonviolence is not to defeat the enemy, but to win them over and create love and understanding between all.[7] It is this principle which is most closely associated with spiritual or religious justifications of nonviolence, the central tenets of which can be found in each of the major Abrahamic religious traditions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) as well as in the major Dharmic religious traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism). It is also found in many pagan religious traditions. Nonviolent movements, leaders, and advocates have at times referred to, drawn from and utilised many diverse religious basis for nonviolence within their respective struggles. Examples of nonviolence found in religion and spirituality include the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus urges his followers to “love thine enemy,” in the Taoist concept of wu-wei, or effortless action, in the philosophy of the martial art Aikido, in the Buddhist principle of metta, or loving-kindness towards all beings; and in the principle of ahimsa, or nonviolence toward any being, shared by Buddhism, Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. Additionally, focus on both nonviolence and forgiveness of sin can be found in the story of Abel in the Qur’an; Liberal movements within Islam have consequently used this story to promote Jewish ideals of nonviolence.

Respect or love for opponents also has a pragmatic justification, in that the technique of separating the deeds from the doers allows for the possibility of the doers changing their behaviour, and perhaps their beliefs. Martin Luther King said, “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.”

Pragmatic

The fundamental concept of pragmatic nonviolence is to create a social dynamic or political movement that can effect social change without necessarily winning over those who wish to maintain the status quo.[7] In modern industrial democracies, nonviolence has been used extensively by political sectors without mainstream political power such as labor, peace, environment and women’s movements. Lesser known is the role that nonviolence has played and continues to play in undermining the power of repressive political regimes in the developing world and the former eastern bloc. Susan Ives emphasized this point with a quote from Walter Wink, “In 1989, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations… If we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions in our century (the Philippines, South Africa… the independence movement in India…) the figure reaches 3,337,400,000, a staggering 65% of humanity! All this in the teeth of the assertion, endlessly repeated, that nonviolence doesn’t work in the ‘real’ world.”[8]

As a technique for social struggle, nonviolence has been described as “the politics of ordinary people”, reflecting its historically mass-based use by populations throughout the world and history. Struggles most often associated with nonviolence are the non co-operation campaign for Indian independence led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the struggle to attain civil rights for African Americans, led by Martin Luther King, and People Power in the Philippines.

Also of primary significance is the notion that just means are the most likely to lead to just ends. When Gandhi said that “the means may be likened to the seed, the end to a tree,” he expressed the philosophical kernel of what some refer to as prefigurative politics. Martin Luther King, a student of Gandhian non-violent resistance, concurred with this tenet of the method, concluding that “…nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.” Proponents of nonviolence reason that the actions taken in the present inevitably re-shape the social order in like form. They would argue, for instance, that it is fundamentally irrational to use violence to achieve a peaceful society. People have come to use nonviolent methods of struggle from a wide range of perspectives and traditions. A landless peasant in Brazil may nonviolently occupy a parcel of land for purely practical motivations. If they don’t, the family will starve. A Buddhist monk in Thailand may “ordain” trees in a threatened forest, drawing on the teachings of Buddha to resist its destruction. A waterside worker in England may go on strike in socialist and union political traditions. All the above are using nonviolent methods but from different standpoints. Likewise, secular political movements have utilised nonviolence, either as a tactical tool or as a strategic program on purely pragmatic and strategic levels, relying on its political effectiveness rather than a claim to any religious, moral, or ethical worthiness.

Gandhi used the weapon of non-violence against British Raj

Finally, the notion of Satya, or truth, is central to the Gandhian conception of nonviolence. Gandhi saw truth as something that is multifaceted and unable to be grasped in its entirety by any one individual. All carry pieces of the truth, he believed, but all need the pieces of others’ truths in order to pursue the greater truth. This led him to believe in the inherent worth of dialogue with opponents, in order to understand motivations. On a practical level, the willingness to listen to another’s point of view is largely dependent on reciprocity. In order to be heard by one’s opponents, one must also be prepared to listen.[citation needed]

Nonviolence has even obtained a level of institutional recognition and endorsement at the global level. On November 10, 1998, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the first decade of the 21st century and the third millennium, the years 2001 to 2010, as the International Decade for the Promotion of a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World.

Living

The violence embedded in most of the world’s societies causes many to consider it an inherent part of human nature, but others (Riane Eisler, Walter Wink, Daniel Quinn) have suggested that violence – or at least the arsenal of violent strategies we take for granted – is a phenomenon of the last five to ten thousand years, and was not present in pre-domestication and early post-domestication human societies. This view shares several characteristics with the Victorian ideal of the Noble savage.

For many, practicing nonviolence goes deeper than withholding from violent behavior or words. It means caring in one’s heart for everyone, even those one strongly disagrees with, that is who are antithetical or opposed. For some, this principle entails a commitment to restorative or transformative justice and prison abolition. By extrapolation comes the necessity of caring for those who are not practicing nonviolence, who are violent. Of course no one can simply will themselves to have such care, and this is one of the great personal challenges posed by nonviolence – once one believes in nonviolence in theory, how can the person live it?

Animal rights

Nonviolence, for some, involves extending it to animals, usually through vegetarianism or veganism.

Methods

Martin Luther King

Nonviolent action generally comprises three categories: Acts of Protest and Persuasion, Noncooperation, and Nonviolent Intervention. [9]

Acts of protest

Nonviolent acts of protest and persuasion are symbolic actions performed by a group of people to show their support or disapproval of something. The goal of this kind of action is to bring public awareness to an issue, persuade or influence a particular group of people, or to facilitate future nonviolent action. The message can be directed toward the public, opponents, or people affected by the issue. Methods of protest and persuasion include speeches, public communications, petitions, symbolic acts, art, processions (marches), and other public assemblies.[10]

Noncooperation

Noncooperation involves the purposeful withholding of cooperation or the unwillingness to initiate in cooperation with an opponent. The goal of noncooperation is to halt or hinder an industry, political system, or economic process. Methods of noncooperation include labor strikes, economic boycotts, civil disobedience, tax refusal, and general disobedience.[10]

Nonviolent intervention

Nonviolent intervention, compared to protest and noncooperation, is a more direct method of nonviolent action. Nonviolent intervention can be used defensively—for example to maintain an institution or independent initiative—or offensively- for example to drastically forward a nonviolent struggle into the opponent’s territory. Intervention is often more immediate and effective than the other two methods, but is also harder to maintain and more taxing to the participants involved. Methods of intervention includes occupations (sit-ins), blockades, fasting (hunger strikes), truck cavalcades, and dual sovereignty/parallel government. [10]

Tactics must be carefully chosen, taking into account political and cultural circumstances, and form part of a larger plan or strategy. Gene Sharp, a political scientist and nonviolence activist, has written extensively about methods of nonviolence including a list of 198 methods of nonviolent action.[11] In early Greece, AristophanesLysistrata gives the fictional example of women withholding sexual favors from their husbands until war was abandoned. The deterrence of violent attack and promotion peaceful resolution of conflicts, as a method of intervention across borders, has occurred throughout history with some failures (at least on the level of deterring attack) such as the Human Shields in Iraq because it failed to ascertain the value of the goal compared with the value of human life in its context of war; but also many successes, such as the work of the Guatemala Accompaniment Project[12]. Several non-governmental organizations, including Peace Brigades International and Christian Peacemaker Teams, are working in this area . Their primary tactics are unarmed accompaniment, human rights observation, and reporting.[13][14]

Einstein was a strong supporter of nonviolence

Another powerful tactic of nonviolent intervention invokes public scrutiny of the oppressors as a result of the resisters remaining nonviolent in the face of violent repression. If the military or police attempt to violently repress nonviolent resisters, the power to act shifts from the hands of the oppressors to those of the resisters. If the resisters are persistent, the military or police will be forced to accept the fact that they no longer have any power over the resisters. Often, the willingness of the resisters to suffer has a profound effect on the mind and emotions of the oppressor, leaving them unable to commit such a violent act again. [15][16].

There are also many other leaders and theorists of nonviolence who have thought deeply about the spiritual and practical aspects of nonviolence, including: Leo Tolstoy, Lech Wałęsa, Petra Kelly, Nhat Hanh, Dorothy Day, Ammon Hennacy, Albert Einstein, John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas, David McReynolds, Johan Galtung, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Daniel Berrigan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Mario Rodríguez Cobos (pen name Silo) and César Chávez.

We will wear you down by our capacity to suffer.
— Martin Luther King, 1963[17]

Green politics

Part of the Politics series on
Green politics
Sunflower
Environment Portal
Politics portal
v d e

Nonviolence has been a central concept in green political philosophy. It is included in the Global Greens Charter. Greens believe that society should reject the current patterns of violence and embrace nonviolence. Green Philosophy draws heavily on both Gandhi and the Quaker traditions, which advocate measures by which the escalation of violence can be avoided, while not cooperating with those who commit violence. These greens believe that the current patterns of violence are incompatible with a sustainable society because it uses up limited resources and many forms of violence, especially nuclear weapons, are damaging for the environment. Violence also diminishes one and the group.

Some green political parties, like the Dutch GroenLinks, evolved out of the cooperation of the peace movement with the environmental movement in their resistance to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

As Green Parties have moved from the fringes of society towards becoming more and more influential in government circles, this commitment to nonviolence has had to be more clearly defined. In many cases, this has meant that the party has had to articulate a position on non-violence that differentiates itself from classic pacifism. The leader of the German Greens, for example, was instrumental in the NATO intervention in Serbia, arguing that being in favor of nonviolence should never lead to passive acceptance of genocide. Similarly, Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada has stated that the Canadian intervention in Afghanistan is justified as a means of supporting women’s rights.

This movement by Green leadership has caused some internal dissension, as the traditional pacifist position is that there is no justification ever for committing violence.

Revolution

Certain individuals (Barbara Deming, Danilo Dolci, Devere Allen etc.) and party groups (eg. Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Party USA, Socialist Resistance or War Resisters League) have advocated nonviolent revolution as an alternative to violence as well as elitist reformism. This perspective is usually connected to militant anti-capitalism.

Many leftist and socialist movements have hoped to mount a “peaceful revolution” by organizing enough strikers to completely paralyze it. With the state and corporate apparatus thus crippled, the workers would be able to re-organize society along radically different lines.[citation needed] Some have argued that a relatively nonviolent revolution would require fraternisation with military forces.[18]

Criticism

Leon Trotsky, Frantz Fanon, Reinhold Niebuhr, Subhash Chandra Bose, George Orwell, Ward Churchill[19] and Malcolm X were fervent critics of nonviolence, arguing variously that nonviolence and pacifism are an attempt to impose the morals of the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat, that violence is a necessary accompaniment to revolutionary change, or that the right to self-defense is fundamental.

Malcolm X criticised nonviolence

In the midst of violent repression of radical African Americans in the United States during the 1960s, Black Panther member George Jackson said of the nonviolent tactics of Martin Luther King, Jr.:

“The concept of nonviolence is a false ideal. It presupposes the existence of compassion and a sense of justice on the part of one’s adversary. When this adversary has everything to lose and nothing to gain by exercising justice and compassion, his reaction can only be negative.”[20][21]

Malcolm X also clashed with civil rights leaders over the issue of nonviolence, arguing that violence should not be ruled out where no option remained:

“I believe it’s a crime for anyone being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself.”[22]

Lance Hill criticizes nonviolence as a failed strategy and argues that black armed self-defense and civil violence motivated civil rights reforms more than peaceful appeals to morality and reason (see Lance Hill’s “Deacons for Defense”)[23].

In his book How Nonviolence Protects the State, anarchist Peter Gelderloos criticizes nonviolence as being ineffective, racist, statist, patriarchal, tactically and strategical inferior to militant activism, and deluded.[24] Gelderloos claims that traditional histories whitewash the impact of nonviolence, ignoring the involvement of militants in such movements as the Indian independence movement and the Civil Rights movement and falsely showing Gandhi and King as being their respective movements’ most successful activists.[25] He further argues that nonviolence is generally advocated by privileged white people who expect “oppressed people, many of whom are people of color, to suffer patiently under an inconceivably greater violence, until such time as the Great White Father is swayed by the movement’s demands or the pacifists achieve that legendary ‘critical mass.'”[26]

The efficacy of nonviolence was also challenged by some anti-capitalist protesters advocating a “diversity of tactics” during street demonstrations across Europe and the US following the anti-World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, Washington in 1999. American feminist writer D. A. Clarke, in her essay “A Woman With A Sword,” suggests that for nonviolence to be effective, it must be “practiced by those who could easily resort to force if they chose.” This argument reasons that nonviolent tactics will be of little or no use to groups that are traditionally considered incapable of violence, since nonviolence will be in keeping with people’s expectations for them and thus go unnoticed. Such is the principle of dunamis (from the Greek: δύνάμις or, restrained power).

Niebuhr’s criticism of nonviolence, expressed most clearly in Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) is based on his view of human nature as innately selfish, an updated version of the Christian doctrine of original sin. Advocates of nonviolence generally do not accept the doctrine of original sin (though Martin Luther King, Jr., did accept a modified version of Niebuhr’s teachings on the subject).[citation needed]

Property damage

One minor, but commonly debated issue is whether the destruction of or damage to non-living objects, as opposed to people is actual “violence”. In much nonviolence literature, including Sharp, various forms of sabotage and damage to property are included within the scope of nonviolent action, while other authors consider destruction or destructive acts of any kind as potentially or actually a form of violence in that it might generate fear or hardship upon the owner or person dependent on that object.

Other authors or activists argue that property destruction can be strategically ineffective if the act provides a pretext for further repression or reinforces state power. Lakey, for instance, argues that the burning of cars during the Paris uprising of 1968 only served to undermine the growing working and middle-class support for the uprising and undermined its political potential.[citation needed]

Sabotage of machinery used in war, either during its production or after, complicates the issue further. Is saving a life by destroying property that will later be used for violence a violent act, or is passively allowing weapons to be used later the violent act (i.e. non-violence that leads to violence)? At a less abstract level, if someone is being beaten with a stick, it is usually not considered an act of violence to take the stick away, but if the stick falls to the ground and you break it, is that still considered a violent action?

In all of these debates it is relevant to consider the question of whether the perpetrator or victim of violence determines what is “violent”. Also, relative power of parties and the type of “weapon” being applied is relevant to the issue. Palestinian children throwing rocks at Israeli tanks as an example cited. Force itself here becomes a relative measure of power and petty violence by the disenfranchised may be violence, but ultimately is not the same as overarching “power” to destroy.

Differing views

The term nonviolence is sometimes used to define different sets of limitations or features, as different actions are considered violent or not violent. In a Wikipedia article on the 2008 Tibetan unrest, a quotation from Dawa Tsering, an Additional Secretary in the Department of Information and International Relations of the Tibetan government-in-exile claims that actions of beating people and setting fire to a building with people holed up inside who end up being burnt to death are both scenarios of nonviolence; though, some Western definitions would clearly clash with their definition of nonviolence which appears to include everything but intentional causing of fatal harm. In an interview with Radio France International Tsering said[27]:

First of all, I must make it clear that the Tibetan (rioters) has been non-violent throughout (the incident). …the Tibetans rioters were beating Han Chinese, but only beating took place. After the beating the Han Chinese were free to flee. Therefore [there were] only beating, no life was harmed. Those who were killed were all results of accidents. …the Han Chinese all went into hiding upstairs. When the Tibetan [rioters] set fire to the buildings, the Han Chinese remained in hiding instead of escaping, the result is that these Han Chinese were all accidentally burnt to death. Those who set and spread the fire, on the other hand, had no idea whatsoever that there were Han Chinese hiding upstairs. Therefore not only were Han Chinese burnt to death, some Tibetans were burnt to death too. Therefore all these incidents were accidents, not murder.

Organizations

See also

Blog do Marcelo Tas

A semana foi, novamente, um nocaute para José Sarney. Desta vez foi localizado um neto dele, contratado ilegamente no Senado. O gajo foi imediatamente afastado. Com um detalhe nefasto: por um ato secreto, para que sociedade não fosse informada. E, como se a palhaçada não estivesse suficiente, no lugar do neto, foi contratada a mãe do mesmo!


Entenda a tramóia: Dona Rosângela Terezinha Gonçalves, casada com um filho de Sarney, foi contratada depois que João Fernando Sarney, seu filho, foi exonerado. O pai de João é Fernando Sarney, filho do presidente do Senado.

Enquanto isso, como foi a semana de Sarney? Almoçou com Boni, ex-todo poderoso da Globo, no Gero, restaurante dos Jardins em São Paulo, quando degustaram um Chateau Petrus, vinho que vale por baixo a bagatela U$ 5 mil a garrafa. Depois foi à festa de casamento da filha de Agaciel Maia, ex-diretor do Senado, pivô de todos os recentes escândalos, um autêntico “Papai Noel” dos congressistas, como aponta o jornalista Josias de Souza em seu blog.

Hoje, para fechar a semana em grande estilo, Zé Sarney rabisca seu textinho semanal, publicado na Folha, com o seguinte título: “O mistério do AF 447”. O beletrista cita Camões, Guimarães Rosa, mas não dá um pio sequer sobre o que todos nós queremos saber: o mistério da caixa preta do Senado.

Como se vê, Sarney não teme a opinião pública. Está rindo da minha, da sua, da nossa cara, nobre internauta. Como leitor do jornal, sinto minha inteligência e meu bolso sendo desrespeitados com a publicação dos devaneios desse senhor.

Thomas L. Friedman – New York Times
Eu confesso. Sou louco por eleições livres e justas. Aquece meu coração ver as pessoas colocando votos em uma caixa para expressar sua vontade, especialmente em uma região onde isso acontece tão raramente. Por isso eu vim para o Líbano no domingo, ver os libaneses realizarem sua eleição nacional. Foi de fato livre e justa – não como a eleição fingida que você verá no Irã, onde só os candidatos aprovados pelo Líder Supremo podem se candidatar. Não, no Líbano foi a coisa real e os resultados foram fascinantes: o presidente Barack Obama derrotou o presidente Mahmud Ahmadinejad do Irã.

Está bem, eu sei. Nenhum deles estava em votação, mas não há dúvida sobre a visão de quem venceu aqui. Primeiro, uma sólida maioria de cristãos libaneses votou contra a chapa de Michel Aoun, que queria alinhar sua comunidade com o partido xiita Hizbollah, e tacitamente com o Irã, porque os considerava os mais capazes de proteger os interesses cristãos – e não o Ocidente. A maioria cristã votou nos que queriam preservar a soberania e a independência do Líbano contra qualquer potência regional.

Em segundo lugar, uma sólida maioria de todos os libaneses – muçulmanos, cristãos e drusos – votou na coalizão 14 de Março, liderada por Saad Hariri, filho do primeiro-ministro assassinado Rafik Hariri. Essa coalizão apoiada pelos EUA vê o futuro do Líbano como um estado independente da influência síria e iraniana e comprometido com seu pluralismo, a educação moderna, uma economia moderna e uma visão progressista.

Saad Hariri, com 71 dos 128 assentos do Parlamento, provavelmente será o próximo primeiro-ministro. Ele sabe que seu gabinete terá de incluir elementos importantes da facção de Aoun e do Hizbollah. Mas se alguém saiu dessa eleição com autoridade moral para liderar o próximo governo foi a coalizão que quer que o Líbano seja governado por e para os libaneses – e não para o Irã nem para a Síria, nem para combater Israel.

Infelizmente, o Líbano ainda está longe de ter um governo estável e o Hizbollah continua sendo uma força armada poderosa fora do estado libanês. No entanto, algo importante aconteceu aqui: a corrente dominante libanesa, armada somente de votos, e não de balas, venceu.

“Eles votaram em seu país e seu modo de vida”, disse o historiador libanês Kemal Salibi. “Houve persistência, foi uma vitória da esperança e da coragem.”

Os votos eram as únicas armas que a coalizão 14 de Março tinha contra uma aliança Irã-Hizbollah-Síria, que é amplamente suspeita de ter participado do assassinato de Rafik Hariri, assim como de seis membros progressistas do último Parlamento e dois dos melhores jornalistas do Líbano – Gebran Tueni e Samir Kassir -, por terem insistido na independência de seu país. No entanto, os aliados, filhos e, em um caso, a filha – Nayla Tueni – desses políticos mortos ainda se candidataram à eleição e venceram.

Eu assisti à votação em uma escola na aldeia de Brummana, na montanha. As pessoas vieram de carro, de cadeira de rodas, a pé – jovens, velhos e doentes. Uma senhora muito idosa caminhava ligada a um pequeno tanque de oxigênio. O tubo em seu nariz a ajudava a respirar. Um jovem carregava o cilindro prateado de oxigênio de um lado dela e uma moça a mantinha em pé do outro. Mas, por Deus, ela ia votar.

“As pessoas nunca compareceram dessa maneira”, disse Sebouh Akharjelian, 29, um empresário na fila de votação. “O que está em jogo é muito alto. É ou render-se a Ahmadinejad ou ficar no lado pró-ocidental.”

Para mim foi surpreendente como o líder do Hizbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, foi conciliador no discurso de admissão de derrota na segunda-feira. Toda a retórica incendiada e as ameaças das semanas anteriores desapareceram. Não tenho dúvida de que ele fará o que o Irã mandar. Mas não pode mais fingir que tem um mandato para arrastar o Líbano para a guerra com Israel novamente. Isso mostra que há um poder em todas aquelas pessoas, todas as velhinhas que votaram contra ele, e ele parecia saber disso.

Enquanto os libaneses merecem 95% do crédito por esta eleição, 5% vão para dois presidentes americanos. Como não mais de um libanês sussurrou para mim: sem George Bush enfrentando os sírios em 2005 – e obrigando-os a sair do Líbano depois do assassinato de Hariri -, esta eleição livre não teria acontecido. Bush ajudou a criar o espaço. O poder importa. Obama ajudou a atiçar a esperança. As palavras também importam.

“As pessoas dessa região ficaram tão esgotadas com a capacidade de seus estados dominarem tudo e realizarem eleições fraudulentas”, disse Paul Salem, analista do Fundo Carnegie para a Paz Internacional. “E, principalmente, o mundo nunca se importou. Então veio este homem [Obama], que os procurou com respeito, falando sobre esses profundos valores, sobre sua identidade, dignidade, progresso econômico e educação, e essa pessoa mostrou que essa pequena prisão em que as pessoas vivem aqui não era o mundo todo. Que a mudança era possível.”

Mais uma vez, não queremos exagerar o que aconteceu. Mas em uma região onde os extremistas tendem a fazer o que querem e os moderados tendem apenas a ir embora, ver os moderados manter seu território e ganhar em algum lugar – com votos e não balas, simplesmente – bem, isso merece aplausos…

Tradução: Luiz Roberto Mendes Gonçalves

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tornado in central Oklahoma. Weather control researchers aspire to eliminate or control dangerous types of weather such as this.

Weather control is the act of manipulating or altering certain aspects of the environment to produce desirable changes in weather.

Contents

 

History of weather control

Witches concoct a brew to summon a hailstorm.

Some American Indians had rituals which they believed could induce rain. The Finnish people, on the other hand, were believed by others to be able to control weather. As a result, Vikings refused to take Finns on their oceangoing raids. Remnants of this superstition lasted into the twentieth century, with some ship crews being reluctant to accept Finnish sailors. The early modern era saw people observe that during battles the firing of cannons and other firearms often initiated precipitation. Magical and religiouspractices to control the weather are attested in a variety of cultures. In Greek mythologyIphigenia was sacrificed as a human sacrifice to appease the wrath of the goddessArtemis, who had caused the Achaean fleet to be becalmed at Aulis at the beginning of the Trojan War. In Homer‘s OdysseyAeolus, keeper of the winds, bestowedOdysseus and his crew with a gift of the four winds in a bag. However, the sailors open the bag while Odysseus slept, looking for booty, and as a result are blown off course by the resulting gale.[1] In ancient Rome, the lapis manalis was a sacred stone kept outside the walls of Rome in a temple of Mars. When Rome suffered from drought, the stone was dragged into the city.[2] The Berwick witches of Scotland were found guilty of using black magic to summon storms to murder King James VI of Scotland by seeking to sink the ship upon which he travelled.[3] Scandinavian witches allegedly claimed to sell the wind in bags or magically confined into wooden staves; they sold the bags to seamen who could release them when becalmed.[4] In various towns of Navarreprayers petitioned Saint Peter to grant rain in time of drought. If the rain was not forthcoming, the statue of St Peter was removed from the church and tossed into a river.[5] In the Middle AgesAbbas Ibn Firnas invented an artificial weather simulation room in which spectators saw and were astonished by starsclouds, artificial thunder, and lightning which were produced by mechanisms hidden in his basement laboratory.[6]

Perhaps the first example of practical weather control is the lightning rod. In the 1950s, computer scientist John von Neumann, an early theorizer on weather control, surmised that if Earth were to enter another Ice Age, a preventative solution would be to dump dirt (or spray soot from cropdusting planes) on the surface of the planet’s glaciers. He noted that this would significantly change their reflectivity (albedo), and thus increase the solar energy retained by the planet. Such a strategy would require repeated applications, as storms would cover some portion of the soot with new snow until their frequency and range abated. The theoretical efficacy of von Neumann’s proposal remains to be examined. Wilhelm Reichperformed cloudbusting experiments in the 1950s to 1960s, the results of which are controversial and not widely accepted by mainstream science. Dr Walter Russell wrote of weather control in Atomic Suicide 1956. Jack Toyer in the 1970s built a rainmaker on Palmers Island near Grafton using a solar mirror, electromagnetic static charge, and infra red frequencies of light to induce weather in regional areas within Australia. His work was continued by his successor, Peter Stevens.

Cloud seeding for rain

Cloud seeding is a common technique intended to trigger rain, but evidence on its effectiveness is mixed. The most daunting problem in the study of weather modification is the lack of scientific knowledge on the natural atmospheric processes. Because these natural processes are beyond man’s current comprehension, there is simply no controllable medium to conduct relative studies known as of yet. And because of the public’s ever growing need for more water, there has also been a rapid development of corporations that perform unregulated operational cloud seeding. Critics generally contend that claimed successes occur in conditions which were going to rain anyway. It is used in several different countries, including the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and Russia. In the People’s Republic of China there is a perceived dependency upon it in dry regions, which believe they are increasing annual rainfall by firing silver iodide rockets into the sky where rain is desired. In the United States, dry ice or silver iodide may be injected into a cloud by aircraft, or from the ground, in an attempt to increase rainfall; some companies are dedicated to this form of weather modification.

Storm prevention

Project Stormfury was an attempt to weaken tropical cyclones by flying aircraft into storms and seeding the eyewall with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983. A similar project using soot was run in 1958, with inconclusive results.[7] Various methods have been proposed to reduce the harmful effects of hurricanes. Moshe Alamaro of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[8] proposed using barges with upward-pointing jet engines to trigger smaller storms to disrupt the progress of an incoming hurricane; critics doubt the jets would be powerful enough to make any noticeable difference.[7]

Alexandre Chorin of the University of California at Berkeley proposed dropping large amounts of environmentally friendly oils on the sea surface to prevent droplet formation.[9] Experiments by Kerry Emanuel[10] of MIT in 2002 suggested that hurricane-force winds would disrupt the oil slick, making it ineffective.[11] Other scientists disputed the factual basis of the theoretical mechanism assumed by this approach.[12] The Florida company Dyn-O-Mat proposes the use of a product it has developed, called Dyn-O-Gel, to reduce the strength of hurricanes. The substance is a polymer in powder form which reportedly has the ability to absorb 1,500 times its own weight in water. The theory is that the polymer is dropped into clouds to remove their moisture and force the storm to use more energy to move the heavier water drops, thus helping to dissipate the storm. When the gel reaches the ocean surface, it is reportedly dissolved. The company has tested the substance on a thunderstorm, but there has not been any scientific consensus established as to its effectiveness.[13] Hail cannons are used by some farmers in an attempt to ward off hail, but there is no reliable scientific evidence to confirm or deny their effectiveness. Another new anti-hurricane technology [1] is a method for the reduction of tropical cyclones’ destructive force – pumping sea water into and diffusing it in the wind at the bottom of such tropical cyclone in its eyewall.

2008 Olympic games

In the largest rain dispersal operation on record in China, and the first time that such technology was used in conjunction with the Olympics, the Beijing Municipal Meteorological Bureau fired a total of 1,104rain dispersal rockets within an eight-hour period prior to and during the opening ceremonies of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad on August 8, 2008. The rockets were launched from twenty-one sites and may have prevented the ceremonies from receiving rainfall in the range of 25 to 100 millimeters of rain.

With a rainy weather forecast for the Olympic night, and 90% humidity, the attempt “successfully intercepted a stretch of rain belt from moving towards the stadium…” said Guo Hu, head of the Beijing Municipal Meteorological Bureau. “…”Under such a weather condition, a small bubble in the rain cloud would have triggered rainfall, let alone a lightning…” said Guo, according to Xinhua News’ 2008 Olympics website.In the subsequent days that followed torrential rain nearly washed the games out.

Ionospheric experiments

The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is a congressionally initiated program jointly managed by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. The HAARP complex is situated within a 23-acre lot in a relatively isolated region near the town of Gakona. When the final phase of the project is completed in 1997, the military will have erected 180 towers, 72 feet in height, forming a “high-power, high frequency phased array radio transmitter” capable of beaming in the 2.5-10 megahertz frequency range, at more than 3 gigawatts of power (3 billion watts). http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/prpeis.html

HIPAS has several diverse experimental facilities: a 1-megawatt rf transmitter to produce ELF/VLF (Extremely Low Frequency and Very Low Frequency) electromagnetic (EM) generation by the absorption ofradio frequency (rf) power in the arctic ionosphere including ion cyclotron excitation; a 100 kW rf plasma torch used in research on the destruction of hazardous waste; a 2.7 m liquid mirror telescope used with one of several lasers for ionospheric stimulation and measurement; an Incoherent Scatter Radar (a new project using 88 ft. diameter antenna at NOAA Gilmore Creek site 34 km SW of HIPAS as the receiving antenna with the transmitter at HIPAS). HIPAS is in the process of adding a very high power (terawatt) laser (recently obtained from LLNL) to perform laser breakdown experiments in the ionosphere. Two Diesel electric generators (1500 HP 4160 V, 3-phase, 1.2 MVA each) are used to power the experiments. There are a number of computers (PC’s ) on site, and a high-speed data line to UAF is available. While these experiments are useful in measuring the properties of the ionosphere, they produce insufficient amounts of energy to modify it in any significant way. however hotspots can be created within the ionospehere where this radiation is focused, temperatures can be elevated by up to 1600`k causing expansion of the ionosphere and subsequent changes in pressure and temperature, which in turn lead to changes in the global meteorology.

Weather control and law

1977 Environmental Modification Convention

Weather control, as well as “weather tampering”, for hostile or military purposes is expressly forbidden dating from at least December 10, 1976, when the “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/72, TIAS 9614 Convention[14] on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” was adopted. The Convention was: Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977; Entered into force October 5, 1978; Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979; U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980.[15]

Space Preservation Act Title: To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons. Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977.IH: The bill originally mentioned chemtrails and H.A.A.R.P.,but was modified and resubmitted as H.R.3616 and H.R.2440. H.R. 2977 Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced October 2, 2001, 107th Congress, 1st Session. The bill was referred to committee and no further action ensued. H.R. 3616 Space Preservation Act of 2002 introduced January 23, 2002, 107th Congress, 2d Session. The bill was referred to committee and no further action ensued. H.R. 2420 Space Preservation Act of 2005 introduced May 18, 2005, 109th Congress, 1st Session, with 34 co-sponsors (see accompanying list). The bill was referred to committee and no further action ensued. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Space_Preservation_Act

2005 U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995

U.S. Senate Bill 517[16] and U.S. House Bill 2995[17] were two laws proposed in 2005 that would have allowed experimental weather modification by artificial methods, attempted to establish a Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and implemented a national weather modification policy. Neither ever became law.

U.S. Senate Bill 1807 & U.S. House Bill 3445 Senate Bill 1807 and House Bill 3445, identical bills introduced July 17, 2007, propose to establish a Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board to federally fund weather modification research http://tlp.law.pitt.edu/SP_DiLorenzo_Weather%20Modification.htm sponsored by Kay Bailey Hutcheson and Mark Udall. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1807

Future aspirations

Climatologist Ross Hoffman has simulated hurricane control based on selective heating and cooling (or prevention of evaporation).[18] Futurist John Smart has discussed the potential for weather control via space-based solar power networks. One proposal involves the gentle heating via microwave of portions of large hurricanes. Such chaotic systems may be susceptible to “side steering” with a few degrees of increased temperature/pressure at critical points. A sufficient network might keep the largest and most potentially damaging hurricanes from landfall, at the request of host nations. Blizzards, monsoons, and other extreme weather are also potential candidates for space-based amelioration.[citations needed] If large-scale weather control were to become feasible, potential implications may include:

  • Unintended side effects, especially given the chaotic nature of weather development
  • Damage to existing ecosystems
  • Health risks to humans
  • Equipment malfunction or accidents
  • Non-democratic control or use as a weapon

For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. Each system would shoot various chemicals into any threatening clouds to shrink rain drops before they reach the stadium.[19]

Weather control in popular culture

In popular culture, weather control technology can be encountered in the realms of public speculation, science fiction, and fantasy. The concept of weather control is often portrayed as a part of terraforming.

Film and television

Star Trek

  • In the Star Trek universe, most advanced planets and colonies utilize weather control, often referred to as weather modification grids or weather modification nets. A small, but long-established TNG-era (ca2369) colony was a weather control facility for approximately a hundred years. Most advanced civilizations apparently employ weather control standard equipment.
  • Weather control technology in 2270s required special facilities, modern TNG– and DS9-era technology consists of multiple mid-size devices positioned strategically, networked and controlled from more-or-less arbitrary places.
  • For example, the planet Risa has its climate controlled to be a tropical paradise. Perhaps one of the few modern exceptions of planets apparently without weather control technology is Ferenginar with continuous rain.

Other films or shows

  • In the Sci Fi Channel original series, Stargate SG1, Episode 214, “Touchstone“, aired on October 30, 1998, the Stargate SG1 team discovers a weather control device on an alien planet, which is subsequently stolen and brought to earth, where experimenting with it wreaked havoc with the local weather. The device was later recaptured and returned to its original planet which had suffered phenomenal storms since it had been stolen.
  • In the Disney Channel Original MovieThe Ultimate Christmas Present, two girls find a weather machine and make it snow in Los Angeles.
  • In the live action Justice League of America film, the villain is a terrorist who has a weather control device.
  • In Aliens, a colony sent to LV-426 by the Company utilized a fusion-powered terraforming atmosphere processor. In the first film, the planet’s climate was not yet suitable for human life.
  • In The Arrival, a race of aliens is found to be terraforming the Earth using hidden factories producing huge volumes of highly potent, engineered “super-greenhouse gases”.
  • In the 1987 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon series, the episode “Hot Rodding Teenagers from Dimension X” includes Stone Warriors using a “weather satellite“, with one difference: while other weather satellite gives weather prognosis, this one “makes weather”. The “weather satellite” creates a storm to level New York City, but the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles destroy it. The episode “Take Me to Your Leader” of the same series include Krang and the Shredder using a machine to reduce the Sun, creating cold weather on the Earth.
  • Storm (played by Halle Berry in the 2000 film and subsequent sequels), a member of the X-Men, can control the weather with her mind.
  • In Superman IIIGus Gorman (Richard Pryor) changes the weather by hacking into a weather satellite.
  • In a Family Guy episode, Stewie builds a machine that can control the weather using only a satellite dish and a See ‘n Say.
  • In the film The Avengers Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery) creates a satellite capable of controlling the weather.
  • Our Man Flint is a 1966 sci-fi action film which stars James Coburn as Derek Flint where a trio of mad scientists attempt to blackmail the world with a weather-control machine.
  • Kaijûtô no kessen: Gojira no musuko is a 1967 film from Japan. Scientists, on a tropical island, conduct weather control experiments then encounter gigantic praying mantises and a giant spider that attack the son of Godzilla. Godzilla arrives and saves his offspring.
  • The cartoon miniseries G.I. Joe: The Revenge of Cobra, showed the terrorist group Cobra in possession of a device called the Weather Dominator.
  • American Daytime soap opera General Hospital featured a storyline where mad genius Mikkos Cassadine used a substance called Carbonic Snow to create a blizzard in the show’s locale Port Charles in the middle of what had been a long hot summer in order to blackmail world leaders into accepting his new world order. Luke Spencer managed to thwart the plan.
  • In WALL-E, the Megacorporation known as Buy N Large, had established a Global Weather Control System, the system was made of satellites that would change and control the weather in the areas that they were in. The system worked so well that soon Buy N Large even launched a program in which citizens can book certain weather in the areas where they live. Such as, scheduling a Thunderstorm during a parade so that it will literally “rain on their parade.”
  • In the sci-fi drama series Heroes, Angela Petrelli’s long-lost sister, Alice Shaw, was revealed to be able to control weather.

Computer games

  • In Master Of Orion, it is possible to build a weather control building to change the planet’s environment.
  • In Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Command & Conquer: Yuri’s Revenge Expansion Pack, the Allies can build the weather control device superweapon, and direct thunderstorms to strike a selected location of the map every 10 minutes.
  • In Tribunal, an expansion pack to The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, the player finds a machine under the city of Almalexia that can change the weather of the city at the will of its user.
  • In Phantasy Star II, a weather, irrigation and dam control system known as Climatrol has been constructed by Mother Brain to make the barren planet Motavia habitable for Palman occupation.
  • In the game Spore by Will Wright, players are able to use a spacecraft to modify planetary atmospheres – creating volcanoes to generate carbon dioxide, seeding plant life to create breathable air, or even using a “Genesis device” to make a planet habitable in one go. There is no actual controlling of weather, however.[20]
  • In “Earth 2150“, the Lunar Corporation are capable of building a weather control station for tactical weather control. The structure can be charged to cause storms, fog, and/or wind at targeted areas on the map.
  • In Fable 2 Knothole island Expansion, the player can control weather by obtaining weather crystals and using them in a weather chamber, 3 crystals represent sun,rain and snow.
  • in The Sims 2 seasons Expansion, players can use a season changing device to make a certain season permanent or prolong a desired season for a number of in-game days.

Prose

  • Ben Bova‘s The Weathermakers is the story of a government agency that controls the weather.
  • Sidney Sheldon‘s Are You Afraid of the Dark is the story of a think tank that builds technology powerful enough to create hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis.
  • In Michael Crichton‘s State of Fear, ecoterrorists plan to create a tsunami, calve an iceberg, and induce flash flooding and hurricanes.
  • In Normand Lester’s science thriller Verglas, the 1998 icestorm that struck the Montréal area is an experiment by the Pentagon in the development of a climatic weapon that went wrong. The book speculate that ULF waves generated by a transmitter at Siple Station, a US base in Antarctica, caused the icestorm by affecting the ionosphere over Québec.
  • In Lois Lowry‘s The Giver, the government controls the weather and keeps it from snowing, and confine rain to the farmland.
  • In the book series Weather Warden by Rachel Caine, the Wardens are an association of people who have the ability to control the elements – earth, fire and weather. They manipulate these elements to stop natural disasters from devastating mankind. The main character herself is a Weather Warden, so weather manipulation plays a large role throughout the series.
  • In Roger Zelazny‘s The Chronicles of Amber an openly known quality of the Jewel of Judgment is the ability to control the local weather.
  • In Frank Herbert‘s Dune series, weather control is widespread, and is achieved with specialized satellites in orbit around a planet.

Music

Other fictional weather controllers

  • DC Comics villain Weather Wizard could control the weather with a special kind of technology in the shape of a wand.
  • Marvel Comics heroes Thor and Storm could control weather; the former because he is the Norse god of thunder, the latter because she is a mutant whose powers specifically center around weather control.
  • Digimon character Wizardmon could manipulate thunderstorms.
  • When the Muppet Count von Count of Sesame Street laughs, it often invokes thunder.
  • In some of the Asterix comics, when the village bard Cacofonix sings, it starts to rain.
  • In the 2000 AD world of Judge Dredd the weather in Mega City One is controlled by a weather control station positioned above the populous and is used to spread a chemical which causes Block War by the city of East Meg One
  • In the Nintendo Gameboy Advance Video Game Pokemon Sapphire, The Pokemon “Kyogre” controlled the rain and the tides in Hoenn.
  • In the BIONICLE Saga, weather control is one of the many powers the Makuta species have.

Conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theorists have suggested that certain governments use or seek to use weather control as a weapon (eg via HAARP and/or chemtrails), but such allegations have not been proven. At a counterterrorism conference in 1997, United States Secretary of Defense William Cohen referred to the writings of futurist Alvin Toffler, specifically regarding concerns about “eco-terrorism” and intentionally caused natural disasters.[21]

See also