Norberto Elias and Engels in the British crisis

Elias's critique of a certain position in sociology, which argues that societies are "not visible," only individuals are (therefore societies are unknowable), is extremely relevant today. For example, it is possible to say that we have tools of knowledge that allow us to "know," within society, the emergence of a kind of "second nature" for humans, which reduces their capacity for self-regulation. This "second nature" is the market, which, instead of being socially regulated, coercively imposes itself on States and Constitutions by the sheer force of its accumulation needs. Because the political community does not regulate the financial market and put it at the service of society as a whole, the market "regulates" the State and Politics, putting them at its service.
 
What Lukács called the "breakdown of natural barriers"—human control over nature—which Elias designates as "the growing change in the relations between human beings and extra-human natural forces," ceases to be a choice of isolated individuals and becomes common social behavior. Helping a person with physical limitations to climb stairs, being supportive of a sick neighbor, satisfying the hunger of a hungry person—these are everyday acts of the "civilizing process," self-regulated, that become ordinary social behaviors. Thus, humans carry out linked movements that compose a specific "social" stage of civilization.
 
The consequences of harnessing steam to generate energy and the construction of modern hydroelectric plants—for example—have generated results that still affect millions of individuals today: lifestyles, ways of producing and enjoying goods and culture, cease to be isolated choices and, as a rule, become socially determined. Therefore, they open up new opportunities for people to "self-regulate."
 
The emergence of politics among humans, as a mediation of the will to dominate, to liberate oneself, to organize common procedures – “the common good” – is the most complex movement that originates from this “self-regulation.” It is a deliberate process, superior to mere survival instincts, to confront the supposedly “natural” superiority that some groups of people exert over others, whether because they are physically stronger, more convincing in their leadership, or – in more complex societies – because they are richer in material goods, able to organize armies and occupy “vital” spaces, form and dominate states.
 
With the formation of modern nation-states, "nationalism" presented a dual face: a brutal, aggressive face, suppressing the national "other" in order to subdue and subordinate it, and another face—democratic and patriotic—that expressed and expresses the will to cease being a "colony" and to form a sovereign nation. The first face establishes, internally within the aggressor country—as in Nazi Germany—the myth of the "natural" superiority of chosen peoples and nations over others. The second face of this modern nationalism instituted the revolutionary national-democratic will for liberation, as did—for example—Vietnam, the former Portuguese colonies, and Algeria.
 
This myth of national superiority was not originally expressed only by the fascist right. Engels, for example, in an article published in the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung” – if I am not mistaken, in the same year that the Communist Manifesto was published (1848) – when assessing “the right with which France took Flanders, and will take Belgium sooner or later” (…) notes the “right of civilization against barbarism, of progress against stagnation”. Engels writes this after considering the Slavs as “peoples without history” or “ahistorical”.
 
This is an unfortunate mixture of naturalistic positivist scientism, which follows some of Engels' formulas, with class-based historical materialism, suitable for the anatomy of class society in capitalism. It is from this Engelsian thought that the theoretical strand of a part of the communist movement was formed, based on the "historical inevitability of socialism" as an applicable scientific point of view, controlled by a state bureaucracy, averse to the vision that socialism can only be a conscious construction. A choice of humans, which revolutionizes both their relationship with nature and progressively transforms the selfish consciousness of individualism into self-regulated, solidarity-based consciousnesses.
 
I understand that the formation of the European Union, even though it is clearly a movement of integration "from above"—driven by the interests of large continental companies and banks—brings with it the possibility of unification "from below," among those sectors, estates, and classes whose "self-regulated" solidarity can become "grand politics"—with Social Europe—the only thing that can provide stability and democratic coexistence to the Continent. I suppose that the exclusion of rich countries from this integration weakens this movement "at the base" more than it corrects the integration projected at the top. This is an aggressive nationalist movement, expressed through omission, for a common relationship between the capitalist nations of Europe, because it does not accept the poor as equals, who necessarily come along with integration from the top.
 
I recently expressed my disagreement – ​​which is obviously of no importance whatsoever – with the United Kingdom's refusal to remain in the European Union. I took this position understanding that such a refusal – if maintained – will negatively impact the world economy. This will affect both the more developed EU countries (which lose a wealthy partner) – whose ruling classes will pass this cost on to the poorest families in their respective countries – and the poorest countries in the world, which will pay even higher interest rates on their already unpayable debts, a space to which banks transfer and compensate for their losses. The new situation of weakening the European Union also reinforces, not weakens, American military, financial, and political hegemony. And it will also generate new imbalances in international trade and new obstacles to the set of social-democratic achievements of the world's working classes. Let's not forget, also, that the American economy, which already has 50 million poor people, is only recovering based on precarious work, part-time jobs, rampant outsourcing, intermittent work, increased poverty, and the war industry—a model they want to transfer to Europe and the whole world. It's Chomsky, Piketty, and Bernie Sanders who say this, not this state scribe.
 
In these crises, those who always lose the most – in every country – are wage earners, low-income people, and small and medium-sized businesses, which generate the majority of jobs. Some people have told me that in the long run this is "good," because the resulting social crisis will eventually cause a new revolution in Europe. I reply that people live, children die, retirees commit suicide, terrorism increases – in the short term, not in the long term. And that from misery and poverty – in an era lacking paradigms to establish more just orders – aimless rebellions have been born, not libertarian revolutions.
 
The logic of economic and political warfare, which seems to be creeping into the European chessboard, is present in the loss of "self-regulation" by individuals who, succumbing to isolationist nationalism, refuse to interfere in the "civilizing process," in order to reaffirm Social Europe against Capitalist Europe. This loss—which leads to the "natural state" of rejecting difference—(in the reflection opened by Elias), if it does not yet have a fascist nationalist slant, tragically opens this possibility.
 
It's true that Mrs. Merkel—the conservative who sets the agenda for the European Union—didn't like it. But it's also true that Donald Trump loved the decision. And that the first, Mrs. Merkel, confronted the German far-right to receive thousands of refugees from Arab countries, and the second, Donald Trump, wants to build a concrete and iron wall on the border between Mexico and the United States. As you can see, in this case, it's not about the old polemic between left and right, directly linked to class struggle, but a new polemic in the civilizational crisis, between what is left and democracy in this conjuncture, and what is fascism and rejection of difference, rising as a symbol of barbarism.
 
The impact on our country will be felt even more brutally, given the nature of the adjustment, already defined by the Meireles Constitutional Amendment, which freezes the federal budget for ten years. Obviously, the percentage that interest payments occupy in the budget structure is not frozen. This implies that debt controls the State and that "self-regulation," expressed through policy in public management, is suppressed for a long period, solely for the benefit of creditors.
 
In reality, the Meirelles Amendment is a constituent process obtained through an undeclared "exception," which is now legally formalized. This process revokes entirely—for at least ten years—all the foundations and social obligations of the 88 Constitution. It is the consecration of the coup that placed in government, through a Congress with a suspect majority, a Confederation of investigated and accused individuals. Will we resist?
 
Tarso Genro was Governor of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Mayor of Porto Alegre, Minister of Justice, Minister of Education, and Minister of Institutional Relations of Brazil.