An Europe doomed to National Socialism and a Latin America without guidance for the future have in their own hands the opportunity and solution to the crisis generated by the pandemic.


In the early moments of deconfinement, the policy of reviving the world economy is far from a single model. It is curious to note that in front of a neoliberal policy with deep-lost support from the state to the private market, the rest of the so-called free world has gone from a social-democratic policy to a national-socialist policy.

The problem of all Western societies is the great ignorance that political ideologies sustain. As we said earlier, the political lines of national socialism and international socialism or communism are very similar and with exaggeratedly tenuous differences. So much so that, in a moment of modern history, one of the most communist countries of the world, which applied that philosophy to the extreme, has gone from a Maoist policy to a National Socialist policy, although it still calls it communism, obviously, we are talking about China. Because China, today, professes a National Socialist policy, or what the Italians named fascism, and have partly set aside communism. Where’s the difference? In the recognition of the state for private property, but always regulated and controlled by the system of State.

That said, the coronavirus crisis does not allow for intermediate solutions, social democracy has no place at this time in any country affected by the economic crisis caused by humanitarian rather than economic measures. The political philosophy of conservatives is just the antagonistic to the solution to the crisis, so the measures to be taken go along the lines of liberalism supported by a selfless government or national socialism where the government resolves to control the system so that it can move forward, but always with its oversight.

Wrongly, it has always been thought that Europe’s political line was liberal, nor has the German government itself allowed at any time a glimpse of neoliberalism to the American one. The whole of Europe has grown immersed in social democracy, and its governors, far from accepting neoliberalism have decided in pandemic descaling to opt for a National Socialist policy. Here would be some communist enlightened to pretend to raise the philosophy of the international socialist as a possible alternative to any of the other two elements, but anyone knows that, in the face of an economic bankruptcy situation of the states, the communist alternative is as failed an alternative as a conservative policy.

The difference between National Socialism and Communism is to allow, under state control, the entrepreneurs, the real experts in economic development who will awaken the market and competitiveness, in the image and likeness of China, wrongly that some do not like this simile.

The European Union, is immersed in this new trend, without really glimpsing how far it is to go with that control by the state, when the state structure itself, in countries such as Spain, do not have the capacity to offer the market real support to demand such subsequent control by the state. But clearly, the European institutions have already decided on the political-economic line to follow.

The Spanish government, lost in its incapacity to decipher even the ideological line of National Socialism imposed by Brussels, confuses concepts such as state intervention, or state involvement in business, with its nationalization. Only Spanish politicians and their press have talked about nationalization, while the rest talk about participation in companies and monitoring them in the face of any support they need not to fail.

That is, the state becomes the Grand Capital, the Venture Capital of companies, what the communists, the market or capitalism would say. That is the model that is being proposed for a Europe that thus opts for a divergence, an inconsistency of speeds, to an arrhythmia that, in a living system, ends with the heart attack. What can be potentially useful for Germany, or France, is not useful for Holland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Uk, … . The systems and business structures of these two country blocs are totally antagonistic.

Europe, in its good times, was divided into two clearly defined blocs, Franco-German and Anglo-Spanish-Italian, which incorporated other small countries such as the Netherlands. Why these groups were based on their own economic policies. The protectionist and subsidizing trend of the first bloc clashed with a more neoliberal and Europeanist policy, which sought in the integration and Europeanization of companies the strength of them for their international competitiveness.

This has led to the form of international groups such as the merger of Iberia and British Airways with a capacity or power that shut down the most comfortable Franco-German groups with their nationalist structures and international intervention on a monopolistic way. We can take that to a lot of fields and we’ll see that the same thing has happened.

The decision of a National Socialist policy by Europe, and without an inclusive figure of Europe itself, but of each country on its part, leads to greater ease of assistance by the French and German governments of their most powerful industrial structures, while the Europeanism of the other countries leaves in limbo the form of aid to industrial groups of European integration , such as Spanish, British or Italian. In addition, the rapid decision of the large French and German firms to liquidate, sell or isolate their investments in other European countries, in order to obtain or provide their states with the precise assistance for their recovery. Clearly the case of these emerging decisions has been the sale of Agbar by the French owner.

If anyone can get away with a National Socialism in the Spanish-British bloc, it is banking, given that the strength of these countries and their historical policy of protectionism in those markets has made it easier that they have not integrated with third parties, which countries such as the Netherlands, Italy or Portugal have no capacity to help that industry.

Concluding, the National Socialist policy defined by Brussels can lead us to a total dependence on the Franco-German bloc or a gradual dismemberment of what was the idea of the European Union, keeping only elements such as currency and the market, but seeking to break the lines of economic political cohesion that do not work, such as coffee for all.

Neither the United Kingdom can follow in the footsteps of the United States, of a neoliberalism supported by a selfless government, nor Spain, Italy and other countries can apply the National Socialist formula to their economies, given the international interaction in their structures of groups, lobbies and international investors, including governments such as China, Germany or France. Per dreadling of a pan-European market-controlled policy by the European multilateral institutions would likely give the European industries the capacity to take off, even if this was slower, or failing that, the implementation of a National Socialist policy would have to be carried out by the European State and not by each of its members.


Many have asked me about the concept of the eurization of the Latin American economy, rather than dollarization. Now, with the new recovery policies, the justification for this concept may become even more clear.

The elimination of the own currency in any country creates an obvious risk at the socioeconomic level of its fellow citizens to the balance of its economy, but limits or demands a public spending limit on states that end up having to restrict their own corruptions. The management of such countries is positioned in models of economic development and the initiative of states to remain in continuous growth, something that may clash with communist policies, but that allows governments to focus on a policy of social growth, that is, they can apply a social democracy, or improve the standard of living of their fellow citizens leaving economic development in the hands of the free market.

While the use of a strong currency has its advantages, the application of a currency such as the dollar leaves states in the hands of the capricious decisions of a single country, of a single government, and of a government that is neoliberal to outrage and which, as we have said in other articles, is far from the humanistic culture, or social democrat of the Latin or Mediterranean.

Instead, the euro is a currency subject to the whim or negotiation of many, with totally different interests and cultures, with which finally, and understanding that, as we said, there are different political-economic tendencies, on the other hand, it guarantees the stability of a socio-economic line that allows any country that adopts it to continue with economic and social growth and does not want to pursue the very strict regime of the European Unión.

At this time in the global crisis, Latin America has, like Europe, the two European political models, while neither country can afford a neoliberal line of selfless state like the United States given its economic inability to carry it out, and given the large social differences in countries.

Unfortunately, in Latin America, there is a viable third alternative, although it will not allow the development of the people and the exit of extreme poverty from their societies, I am talking about communism. Cubanization, or poor communism of states, is the third of the solutions, that few countries would be able to implement, really.

On the other hand, if we make a simple and simple cross-cutting vision, we would encounter a pro-National Socialism bloc such as Franco-German, led by countries such as Brazil or Chile, while Argentina, Colombia or Mexico would be on the more Spanish-Italian-British line of pan-state support in order to coordinate a democratic social policy in parallel with aid created by multilateral environments of several countries , as was the design of the CAF, BDI or BDE at the time. Peru could benefit from either of the two structures or recovery policies while each of the small countries would be more subject to the model of the second bloc and always supported by the large ones, as is the case in Europe.

A model of eurization of Latin American economies would strengthen a more bilateral market between the two continents, and would give an opportunity for the policies of the Spanish-Italian bloc to be strengthened and strengthened by a group of nations with philosophy, culture and goals of improving the living standards of their societies more closely related to this same policy. Latin America could accelerate its shift from a basic industrial economy to a transformative industrial and service economy similar to European economic and social levels.