TO THE EDITOR:
The societies that have managed to improve the lives of their inhabitants did so after decades of growth, capital accumulation, innovation, productivity, institutional strengthening, and lasting agreements. These are less epic processes, without the instant solutions promised by a revolutionary upheaval—a path proposed by radical left-wing sectors to achieve development.
On the contrary, societies require the commitment of their members and the virtues of prudence, fortitude, perseverance, and resilience to reach a safe harbor. Nothing could be further from this than October 2019.
From October-ism, we must also reflect on its simplistic way of understanding history: the one that presents social advances as conquests obtained fundamentally in the streets, through peaceful or violent protests. According to this narrative, behind every right there would be a demonstration that won it, as if there were a direct relationship between protest and progress.
If we accept that changes are born exclusively from moments of rupture, it becomes easy to view the destruction that accompanies them as the inevitable, or even fruitful, price of a subsequent transformation. Adopting as a moral criterion that the end justifies the means risks relativizing the destruction of the metro, businesses, neighborhoods, and public spaces under the false idea that a better society would emerge from chaos.
Destroying infrastructure, weakening coexistence, and undermining the...
AI Brief
Your highlights
RODRIGO GALVEZ CommentsTO THE EDITOR:Societies that have managed to improve the lives of their inhabitants did so after decades of growth, capital accumulation, innovation, productivity, institutional strengthening, and lasting agreements. These are less epic processes, without the instant solutions promised by a revolutionary outbreak — the path that radical left-wing sectors propose to achieve development. On the contrary, societies require commitment from their members and the virtues of prudence, fortitude, perseverance, and resilience to reach a safe harbor. Nothing could be further from October 2019. Regarding "Octobrism," we must also reflect on its simplistic way of understanding history: the one that presents social advances as conquests obtained fundamentally in the streets, through peaceful or violent protests. According to this narrative, behind every right there would be a demonstration that conquered it, as if there were a direct relationship between protest and progress. If we accept that changes are born exclusively from moments of rupture, it becomes easy to view the destruction that accompanies them as the inevitable, or even fruitful, price of a subsequent transformation. Adopting as a moral criterion that the end justifies the means risks relativizing the destruction of the metro, businesses, neighborhoods, and public spaces under the false idea that a better society would emerge from chaos. Destroying infrastructure, weakening coexistence, and undermining the economy are not necessary stages of progress, but rather a prelude to the country's decline. In what are we better off than before 2019? Judging by various indicators, in nothing, and it seems we are worse off than 7 years ago. Julio Isamit Executive Director of Res PublicaMore about:OutbreakOctobrismDecline