The G-20 Summit in London brought a tense convergence of North American and European proposals. The latter foretell more rigid controls and regulation of the markets, and the North American ones seek to save the private banking system with state injection of thousands upon thousands of millions of dollars, taken from the taxpayers in order to finance credit, and guarantee the continuation of consumption. There are reports that Barack Obama committed himself to incorporate some of the European proposals, thereby creating a minimal consensus to face the crisis collectively.

However, one must recognize that both solutions are intra-systemic and not inspiring, because they in no way question the capitalist mode and its political expression, neo-liberalism. Curiously, Sarkozy, in an article on April 1st, proposed a cooperative and solidarian capitalism as a way out of the chaos. He seems to understand little of the logic of capitalism, which is ruled by competitiveness and not by cooperation. Solidarity is not a capitalist virtue; if it were, it would not exclude so many millions. Anyone who thinks that capitalism is good for the workers is delusional. Capitalism is good for the capitalists who hold property, knowledge and power.

The proposals of the G-20 maintain the accumulation of capital as the primary motor of the functioning of the economy, and the free market as the place where it is produced. This is simply more of the same. It does not attack the causes that brought about the crisis. The economic-financial crisis is viewed outside of the global context of other crises. The crises in society, food, energy, climate and ecology are all considered externalities, that is, details which are not relevant to capital.  Factors such as the displacement of millions of persons from the country to the cities, deforestation, contamination of the soil, sea and air are considered only when they are seen as impediments to the profits from capital.

But one cannot avoid the ethical question: Is this a solution that considers humanity as a whole, and ensures the vitality of planet Earth, or does it simply try to save the capitalist system for the benefit of those who accumulate? Is this the system's new gamble? Is there a crisis within the system, or is it a crisis of the system?

All indications are that it is a crisis of the system. The two main externalities —social and environmental— do not occupy a central place, but are so grave that they endanger the solutions contemplated, which are sustainable only in the short and medium range. But the crisis will return, possibly in the form of tragedy or farce. (Marx).

The world social crisis is terrifying. 2007-2008 data by the United Nations Development Program, UNDP, show that the wealthiest 20% consume 82.4% of the wealth of the world, while the poorest 20% must make do with only 1.6%. This is to say, a very small minority monopolizes consumption on a global scale, while the economic zeros are relegated to misery. More than 900 million are starving, and every four seconds someone dies of hunger, according to J. Ziegler in his report to the United Nations on world poverty. What kind of mind and heart do some analysts from Brazil have (see M. Leitão and Sardenberg), if they know about this, and still defend such a perverse system?

The ecological crisis is not negligible. We are already immersed in global warming that will devastate millions of people, and bio-diversity. E. Wilson, the well known biologist, definitively showed that capitalist voracity eliminates 3, 500 species every year. Facing this dramatic scene, we can only repeat what the genius who critiqued capital wrote in Latin: «dixi et salvavi animam meam», «I said it and saved my soul.»

Leonardo Boff: Theologian, Earthcharter Commission

(Free translation from the Spanish sent by Melina Alfaro, done at Refugio del Rio Grande, Texas)