The Third Way

Before defining the Third Way or what it is considered to be by his author, it is convenient to state what the Third Way is not, and put forward the argument that criticizes some principles of Anthony Giddens upon such a theory.

First, the Third Way is not a technocratic project tainted with utopian feature nuance, nor a politic and ideological new direction in the search for a new place in politics for the emerging social sectors that want to have a position in the political scenario.

Secondly, it is not an empty concept –without a real sense, nor a coined expression by Giddens –which has been adopted by the left to adhere just itself to right-centre wing.

Thirdly, it is not defined either as Giddens does as a programme of modernity on economy, political system and the state of welfare. Neither does the Third Way in its postulates seek for a renovation of public institutions.

The Third Way does not linger on what is accepted from what is denied. It is not the best of the economy of market –productivity – neither is it the reward of social democracy –a distributive system.

Upon the postulates of the Third Way by Giddens, some of them are unthinkable practical and utopian ones.

The first one: “New politics or a second wave of democratisation.” In a sense: “the people are consulted.” As this theoretical postulate lingers on a fundamental element of democracy that the majority governs, so public opinion should be counted. However, this cannot be done by abolishing the traditional democratic institutions and replacing them for such units of public debate for referendum. This one as another is a medium through which is conveyed the interests of people, so that it can be manipulated. And, it is prone to be under pressure in a major degree in the latter than the former.

Just have a glimpse of some Latin American countries where the rotted traditional institutions have been replaced for referendum and an emerging new leader, who becomes a Messiah, uses it for his own political benefit.

The second one: “New relationship between State, Market and civil society.”

The role of the state is to have due participation according to the moment. And, this should be assured by some rules that would be applied –independently its nature– on the circumstance.

A relationship between the state and civil society should be on the terms of one that defines a judicial, legislative and executive frame, where civil society can act.

Finally, upon the market, the state should encourage the private entrepreneur who is a principal factor in the economy, but it should regulate this when it is out of the equilibrium point.

And the third one: “A commitment with the entrepreneur.”

If a country’s decisions as well as its activities are based on the international sector it means the loss of democracy and the own national interest.

To have a real scenario of this principle, it is advisable to screen out Latin American society in which the higher classes, dominant but not leading ones and beneficiaries of the system by the political influences and alliances with foreign monopolies, are not interested in the development of their own country because this would imply the alteration of their supremacy; besides their profits would be in jeopardy.

The Third Way is the way as the state –in its main role of the head of the nation– deals with all the areas of the system. And, this way is just adjusted to the conditions of the moment.

The Third Way in the practice could be evidenced as El Partido Socialista Obrero Español had made the way for economic and social agents to go in a free-market economy coming from an autarchic and corporate economy. As in France, the Third Way is considered as the socialists update themselves having more Anglo-Saxon socialism rather than interventionist socialism.

But, one relevant example by the political system and complexity of the thought of the men in Asia, it is the case of China with respect to Taiwan.

Alberto Moreno Rojas, IV Seminario, “Los Partidos Terceravia y Socialismo y una Nueva Sociedad”, Ciudad de Mexico, Febrero del 2000.

Anthony Gidens, “La Tercera Via”, Ed. Taurus

Article part of the Notes from Through Existences.
https://payhip.com/b/zRI2

Poor Rich Countries

‘And do you think that we should lay the country’s destiny on my perception?’ Marcio asked, ironically. ‘To redefine your national plan.’
‘It seems that my plan doesn’t sort out the real problem,’ said Raul Menendez.
‘Well, we have inherited all the chaos created by Orallez,’ commented Nuria.
‘I’m completely aware of you are in the spot. You need to unload the government’s finances of the burden of the bulged red-tape. But if you throw onto the streets all those people, so you will create a major problem if they don’t have where to go. And if you instrument a plan for the private sector to absorb them, so the economic factors tell you not to intervene in the economy.’
‘These jerks like the American system, but they don’t learn from them. There you see that the government now watches and put its hand on the economy,’ told Raul Menendez. (1)

It is a paradox –a complex one– of being rich, or a potential one, but being actually poor. This condition brings us into memory the title of the book: "Father rich Son poor". And also, the idea makes us think this: the head of the family did not instruct his descendants with the secrets of how he had made and kept his fortune. But, this is not the case to which I attributed the title to this article. When I had sat down to write this piece I did with my mind on those countries –especially the Latin American ones- whose potentiality is limitless owing to the fact of having a considerable wealth in natural resources, but they are those which terribly face serious hardships in their economies and societies.

In spite of having a considerable potential wealth by their innumerable natural resources –some of them are worth in the international markets enabling some countries have their gross income coming from exporting one or two of those resources; these haven't able to develop their economies and their societies which face extreme poverty, rather misery.

Before this dramatic reality, these countries -through the last century- adopted several rules and even radical changes in the economic model to vary this awful condition of underdevelopment in an attempt to grant prosperity to societies. So, we have the postulates of Cepal that orientated –in the fifties- the economic model through the substitution of imports for national production forcing the process of industrialization in the countries, which had to eliminate the barriers that impeded industrialization in the sixties; the same ones that in the seventies looked for diversifying their capacity of exporting and to bring equalization into their society. However, in the sixties and seventies, some countries did not adopted these principles issued by Cepal, and they opted to change their economic model by switching from their particular capitalism into socialism and even communism.

After the evident failure of the postulates of Cepal, some countries adopted the tendencies of the moment that was neo-liberalism in the nineties, so that they applied an adjusting program to their economies (which it had had an impressive success at macro level but with a big social cost). So, the majority of them abandoned their programs and shunned neo-liberalism. Then, they went back into retrospective tendency labelled now as New Socialism or Socialism of Twenty Century, which is not defined and have elements of socialism, but in practice it is a sort of neo-liberalism exercised by the State.
Obviously, as in the past, this brings as consequence debacle and entanglement of economies.

 ‘And what do I have to do?’ The president demanded.
‘It is hard. You have to change Venezuelan mentality. Before coming along oil, this country was physiocratic. I mean our growth was defined by agricultural production. So the Venezuelan was not used to the concept that work created value. His idea of his yielding was the outcome of his work. And all of a sudden, we have an industry where is introduced the terms of productivity and revenue. Then, we talk about a lucrative economy, but we still thought as a physocratic one. So we have the concept of rentable and lucrative in conflict. Our system works thanks to the state’s intervention. In some period –according to the government’s vision, the state has become almighty. And this happens when all the powers concentrated in the government’s hands at the time. So the habitants of this country perceive that their economic future or activity is tied to the state’s structure. And, in order to have a position in the system –I mean a profitable one, or to keep their fortune is a key factor to be linked with the state.’(1)


What the governors nor the voters have considered is the real reason of their underdevelopment, which it is the disassociation of wealth with work and it comes since the Conquest.In these countries, especially the Latin American ones, where there was no colonization just conquest –and it differs from one to another, are those in situation of underdevelopment.The colonist is a man along with his family who has settled down in a new land to work on it to create better conditions or a new way of living that he does not enjoy in his own country.

The conquer is the man who has come to the new land looking for wealth, and he is in search of treasures to be a lord, because in the Spain then work was despised and this disqualified a man in the social rank, so to be in the Court nobody could live from the work of their own hands.This kind of man was who set foot on the Latin American land. And, he did not come with the idea of work and equality. So they embarked themselves on the adventures that led them to treasures, and they left work to aborigines who did not understand what work was like, because they lived off hunting and fishing –activities that were not paid and without scheme.

As the aborigine could not stand the burden of the daily labour the slaves were brought, who associated work with curse since for them work was slavery -which was not paid off and restrained their freedom.

The solution to their underdevelopment condition is not the adoption of an economic model –sometimes divorced from their culture heritage. It is just the change of attitude of their society.

They have to modify their conduct pattern, which have been based so far in that character of the Spanish literature: el picaro, who ideated the most astute things for not working and considered the government as a great loot which has to be taken by assault.

Once these countries have societies with a high appreciation of that through work comes wealth –and not matter the kind as long as this is a legal one- and politicians whose ideas convey development and honesty, their society will evolve from poverty into prosperity.

 (1) Excerpts from Through Existences by Oliver Frances