Considerato che le elezioni presidenziali sono state aggiudicate con un margine esiguo, e che l’elettorato di Sao Paulo ha votato in gran parte per il candidato dell’opposizione Aecio Neves, i sostenitori della secessione sono diventati un po’ più visibili.

A Sao Paulo, però, l’idea di una secessione non è legata specificamente agli ultimi dodici anni di potere del Partito dei Lavoratori. Risale a prima, ed è sostenuta da ragioni e pretesti diversi, dalla migrazione proveniente dal Nord-est ai soldi delle tasse che da Sao Paulo sono ridistribuite in tutti gli altri stati del Brasile. Nonostante sia uno degli stati più ricchi della nazione, è il ragionamento, Sao Paulo è impedito dal fatto di far parte del Brasile.

Ma esiste anche un altro movimento secessionista, molto meno conosciuto: il Movimento per l’Indipendenza del Nord-est, le cui ragioni contrastano fortemente con quelle della sua controparte di Sao Paulo. Nel suo articolo “Neocolonialismo Interno Brasileiro e a Questao Nordestina” (Il Neocolonialismo Interno Brasiliano e la Questione del Nord-est), Jacques Rimbeboim spiega come lo sfruttamento di Sao Paulo sia un mito. La logica della federazione brasiliana, è il ragionamento di Rimbeboim, è la logica di un neocolonialismo interno:

Nello lo scenario attuale, il Sud-est importa manodopera e materie prime a prezzi repressi (ovvero, bassi) ed esporta verso il Nord-est prodotti finiti a prezzi alti e protetti. È così che nel mercato interno il Nord-est è costretto a pagare per un automobile o per altri beni di consumo più di quanto pagherebbe nel mercato mondiale se ci fosse libertà di scelta. In altre parole, paga un’addizionale per la manodopera paulista, addizionale che va a sostenere l’industria di Sao Paulo.

La dipendenza del Nord-est dal Sud-est ha avuto origine da un processo storico che ha portato il governo centrale, in un momento d’isteria espansionistica, a proteggere l’industria nazionale esistente contro ogni genere di concorrenza. L’economia è chiusa, a tutto beneficio di un’industria che, sebbene concentrata per lo più in una piccola regione del Sud-est, è stata eletta a rappresentante di tutta l’economia brasiliana. Il settore manifatturiero nazionale è sempre stato il settore manifatturiero di Sao Paulo.

Avrebbe più senso, per dire, che gli stati amazzonici, data la posizione geografica, commerciassero con i paesi andini. Ma questo non è possibile perché Brasilia considera il Mercosur qualcosa di sacro.

È così che il Nord-est e l’Amazzonia sono stati danneggiati dai sussidi che il governo nazionale concede a Sao Paulo. Queste regioni, relativamente più povere, sono state costrette a comprare prodotti più cari per finanziare i presunti beni pubblici di uno sviluppo nazionale che, in realtà, non sono altro che assistenzialismo a favore delle industrie del Sud-est.

Morale: Il secessionismo di Sao Paulo non fa altro che nascondere sotto il tappeto quella serie di aiuti di stato e protezionismi denunciati dai secessionisti del Nord-est.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Y puesto que la elección presidencial se decidió por un margen muy pequeño, y teniendo en cuenta también que el electorado de Sao Paulo votó en su mayoría por el candidato opositor Aecio Neves, las voces secesionistas han ganado aun más impulso.

Sin embargo, el secesionismo de Sao Paulo no está vinculado específicamente a los 12 años que el Partido de los Trabajadores ha estado en el poder. Es una idea más antigua, mantenida por diversas razones y pretextos, como la migración del noreste o los impuestos de Sao Paulo que se redistribuyen a otros estados brasileños. A pesar de ser uno de los estados más ricos de la nación, el argumento es que Sao Paulo está estancado por ser parte de Brasil.

Hay, sin embargo, un movimiento secesionista mucho menos conocido: el Movimiento Independiente del Noreste, cuyos argumentos contrastan fuertemente con los ofrecidos por sus homólogos de Sao Paulo. En el artículo “Neocolonialismo Interno Brasileiro e a Questão Nordestina” (“El neocolonialismo interno brasileño y la cuestión del noreste”), Jacques Ribemboim muestra que la explotación económica de Sao Paulo es un mito. Ribemboim sostiene que la lógica de la federación brasileña es la lógica del neocolonialismo interno:

“En el escenario actual, el Sudeste importa mano de obra y materias primas a precios deprimidos (más baratos) y exporta productos manufacturados al noreste a precios altos y protegidos. Así, el nordestino se ve obligado a pagar más por un automóvil o cualquier otro artículo de consumo en el mercado interior en lugar disfrutar de la libre elección en el mercado mundial. En otras palabras, paga un valor de mano de obra adicional al paulista para apuntalar la industria de Sao Paulo”.

El noreste depende del sudeste a causa de un proceso histórico en el que el gobierno central, en su histeria desarrollista, se ha abocado a proteger la industria nacional existente contra cualquier tipo de competencia. La economía está cerrada para beneficio de una industria que se asume representa a todo el país, a pesar de que en realidad se concentra en su mayoría en una pequeña franja del sudeste. La fabricación nacional siempre ha sido principalmente la fabricación de Sao Paulo.

Tendría sentido, por ejemplo, que los estados amazónicos comerciaran con los países andinos dada su proximidad geográfica, pero eso no es posible porque según Brasilia el Mercosur es sagrado.

Por lo tanto, el noreste y la Amazonia han sido perjudicados por los subsidios a favor de Sao Paulo. Estas regiones más pobres han tenido que comprar productos más caros para financiar el supuesto bien público del desarrollo nacional, que en realidad es un esquema de bienestar corporativo para la industria del sureste.

El secesionismo de Sao Paulo se hace la vista gorda ante los subsidios y el proteccionismo denunciados por el secesionismo del noreste.Artículo original publicado por Kevin Carson el 7 de noviembre de 2014.

Artículo original publicado por Valdenor Júnior el 13 de noviembre de 2014.

Traducido por Alan Furth a partir de la traducción al inglés de Erick de Vasconcelos de la versión original en portugués, escrita por Valdenor Júnior.

And since the presidential election was decided on a very slight margin, and considering too that the Sao Paulo electorate cast their votes mostly for opposition candidate Aecio Neves, secessionist voices have gained a little more momentum.

However, Sao Paulo secessionism is not tied specifically to the 12 years that the Workers’ Party has been in power. It is an older idea, upheld for various reasons and pretexts, from the Northeast migration to the taxes from Sao Paulo that are redistributed to other Brazilian states. Despite being one of the richest states in the nation, the argument goes that Sao Paulo is being held back by being part of Brazil.

There is, though, a far lesser known secessionist movement: the Independent Northeast Movement, which stands in sharp contrast to the arguments offered by their Sao Paulo counterparts. In the article “Neocolonialismo Interno Brasileiro e a Questao Nordestina” (“Brazilian Internal Neocolonialism and the Northeast Issue”), Jacques Ribemboim shows that the economical exploitation of Sao Paulo is a myth. Ribemboim argues that the logic of Brazilian federation is the logic of internal neocolonialism:

“In the current scenario, the Southeast imports labor and raw materials under depressed prices (cheaper) and export to the Northeast manufactured products under high and protected prices. That way, the Northeasterner is compelled to pay more for an automobile or any other consumption item in the internal market as opposed to a free choice in the world market. In other words, she pays an additional labor value to the Paulista to prop up the Sao Paulo industry.”

This Northeastern dependence on the Southeast has occurred because of a historical process in which the central government, in its developmentalist hysteria, has come to protect the existing national industry against any kind of competition. The economy is closed off to the benefit of an industry that has been elected to represent the whole country of Brazil, even though it is actually concentrated mostly in a small swath of the Southeast. The national manufacturing has always been mainly Sao Paulo manufacturing.

It would make sense, for instance, that the Amazonian states should engage in trade with the Andean countries, given their geographical proximity, but that is not possible because according to Brasilia, the Mercosur is sacred.

Thus, the Northeast and the Amazon have been harmed by subsidies in favor of Sao Paulo. These poorer regions have had to buy more expensive products to finance the supposed public good of national development which, in fact, amounts to corporate welfare to the Southeast industry.

Sao Paulo secessionism sweeps under the rug subsidies and protectionism that Northeast secessionism denounces.

Translated by Erick Vasconcelos.

Translations of this article:

• Spanish, “Secesionismo brasileño: Sao Paulo contra el Noreste“
• Italian, Secessionismo Brasiliano: Sao Paulo Contro il Nord-est

This meaning I’m sure is lost though on the majority of Argentines, as it is certainly lost on Americans. Like Christians with the Age of Miracles, the right to withdraw one´s consent from being governed is an anachronism and is not applicable in present time.

If Argentines respect and openly celebrate the action of their historical secession from Spain, they should also respect the current right of the region of Tierra Del Fuego to secede from Argentina if it ever chose to. Consistent respect for this principle also demands that one permit the individual towns to secede from the region, and then to permit individual people to secede from their local political relationships. The logical result of the rigorous application of secession is a world of purely voluntary association and statelessness.

I recently began to think in these terms once more after reading Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln” while on vacation in South America, but Murray Rothbard illustrated this concept years ago:

“Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible ´anarchy´ why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.”

The true philosophical divide between people, which happens to fit rather snugly on top of the individualist and collectivist axes, is whether one supports world government or statelessness. The Marxists I know are consistent in this regard. They do not acknowledge the right of any individual to secede from a Marxist state and would use force to prevent it. Conversely, the pseudo-liberal states of today run the hypocritical ground of being originally secessionist but have now become the oppressors they had once escaped from. This “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” mentality leads to ironic gotchas when upset individuals petition their ruling states.

Ho Chi Minh quoted the American Declaration of Independence in the Declaration of Vietnamese Independence in 1945. The Black Panthers did the same thing in their Ten Point Program. The majority of inhabitants in these post-secessionist states have psychologically and philosophically adopted the behavior of those that their nations’ founders had originally sought to secede from while simultaneously celebrating historical secessionism. This is as true in Argentina as it is in America.

Something however did give me hope at the Bicentenario. Complete with circle A´s was a phrase I took a picture of. It was sprayed onto a concrete parking divide and read “Argentina Trabaja Para Cuando?” In English it asks “Argentina Works for How Many?” There are always those who peer through the silliness. The Age of Secession is not but a memory of epochs past. Still today revolutionaries may send fancy pieces of parchment to their oppressors and state their intent to venture their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the struggles for their sovereignty.

If one can successfully illustrate the absurdity of an ‘occasional’ or strictly historical right to secede, a rational person must then either approve of the right of secession for people at the current moment or should begin clamoring for world government. They cannot reasonably believe in the right of historical actors to secede but not of people now living, or those who will live in the future. They will then become secessionists or join their statist brethren in true and consistent form and openly embrace the philosophy of world government which they have been unknowingly espousing.