Nova Europa: Europe's Second Renaissance (3)

A powerful and united Europe is not possible without a sound European economy. In a time of economic crisis such as now, people all over the continent blame the European Union for its economic  woes. This is, for the most part, an unfair accusation , yet, it is one that cannot easily be dismissed or completely refuted. People will always find a scapegoat in times of economic crisis, and the European Union is a great candidate. The euro, in particular, has been blamed, often and repeatedly, for the economic problems that Europe now faces.

However, the reality is that the European Union's system of free circulation of people and goods is a major plus for the continent's economy. The same could also be said for the existence of a stable common currency such as the Euro.

In spite of all of this, however, much needs to be done in order to improve the European economy. These changes must come from the European Union, the national governments as well as the people of Europe and its businesses, big and small. Solutions for current problems must be found on all of these levels if the European economy is to truly improve in a sustained and durable manner.

What cannot happen and will not, in any case, bring good results, is for people to blame the economic crisis on whatever or whoever they can think of, without truly thinking rationally about these issues and accepting their share of the blame. Right now, we have the Greeks blaming the Germans and the Germans blaming the Greeks. We have the Portuguese blaming Angela Merkel and the European Union. We have the British blaming Europe and foreigners in general. We have France blaming the EU and the Muslims. And so on... Yet, if we really want to improve  the situation, it is necessary to first blame ourselves. And then to blame a number o national governments who have systematically mismanaged national finances and robbed the state arcs. No one is more responsible for the economic problems of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy than their own politicians, who have spent decades making a career out of robbing the people who elected them and mismanaging the finances of their countries.

Europeans need to elect better leaders but they also need to start thinking and acting differently. The first step is to stop blaming everyone else for their problems, including Europe and the Euro, and to start assuming some responsibility for their mistakes. The second step is to identify the problems and the third step is to start solving them.

The European Union and the European Central Bank need to start looking closely at their shortcomings and start to correct them. They should assume responsibility for their past mistakes and start doing a better job. This is the only way to gain the people's support.

National governments need to put a stop to corruption, especially in the southern countries. They also need to start spending less money than they make. This might sound like a very obvious thing, but in spite of being obvious it is a principle that is constantly overlooked by irresponsible national governments. The national debts of European governments, particularly southern ones, is too high and is constantly getting bigger. This leads to situations like those of Portugal or, especially, Greece.

There is also a problem of over-taxation in many European countries. This makes it hard for new companies to survive, and even harder fro them to thrive and expand, which in turn leads to shortcomings in the creation of jobs. An outlook of over-taxation discourages potential entrepreneurs, which in  turn leads to fewer jobs, high unemployment, low consumption and even lower tax income for governments. European governments must encourage, not discourage, the creation of companies. This will lead to the creation of more jobs which will allow people to spend more money in the economy and pay higher taxes which will ultimately benefit everyone.

A new age of prosperity can only be possible in an environment where people are willing to create new means of production, namely businesses. European economies have become stagnated and this is due, in no small degree, to the poor entrepreneurial spirit of young Europeans when compared to their American and even Asian counterparts. In an age of high unemployment, it is more important than never to create new businesses, to invest in businesses with growth potential and to develop and apply financial creativity. The new generations of Europeans will have to overcome the current difficulties of a stagnated European economy by proving themselves to be active, adventurous, hard working, imaginative, financially responsible and intrepid members of the active population.  

Nova Europa: Europe's Second Renaissance (2)

At the beginning of the 20th century, the great European powers were still the masters of the globe. The great British Empire was at the height of its extension and influence. It was only rivaled by the second French Colonial Empire, which included vast domains in Africa and Asia as well as minor possessions in the Americas and the Pacific ocean. New empires, such as the German, the Italian and the Belgian empires were conquering the last unconquered African territories. Even the old imperial powers of the early stages of European expansion such as Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands still held considerable lands around the globe and continued to have influence in the global affairs. Only the advent of the first and later second world wars would change this.

In 1945, by the end of World War 2 all of the European colonial empires had either fallen or were about to fall. At the beginning of the 21st century, Europe had only memories of shattered empires lost to history and eternity. It's power and influence were also gone, and they still are.

In 2015, only five European nations can be considered significant players in the world affairs. Out of these five (Spain, Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom) only France and the UK actually have reasonably powerful armed forces, and only Germany has a world-class economy. Still, even the  combined might of the British and the French armed forces pales in comparison to the American armed forces, and even Europe's biggest economy, Germany, is only a fraction of the size of the American and Chinese economies.

The sad truth is that Europe is not what it used to be, or worse, it doesn't even count anymore. Its economies are too small and its armies are even smaller. Even though the UK and France are members of the UN Security Council, their membership can only be justified at this point by historical reasons. The United States was the true reason why Russia didn't colonize most of the continent in the latter half of the twentieth century and the United States, through NATO, still controls the fate of Europe to this day. European nations, once proud and mighty, cannot truly guarantee their own safety anymore without the support of the USA. This state of affairs is not only humiliating for Europeans, it should also be a matter of much greater concern than it currently seems to be.

Spoiled by decades of peace, Europeans, especially western and northern Europeans, have forgotten the reality of war. At this point, Europe is heavily reliant on the good will of the United States. Should the American giant decide that it is not in its best interests to protect Europe anymore, Europeans could be forced to realize its own vulnerability. Because of geographical reasons western and northern Europeans have enjoyed the tranquility of peace assured by the protection of the United States. However, Eastern Europeans have been forced to accept Soviet rule, either direct or indirect, becoming thus more aware of their own fragility. Even these lessons, however, are starting to fade with time, except in Ukraine who is not being manhandled by the Russians as the rest of the continent watches impotently. An astute observer from Western, Northern or Central Europe should promptly realize that their safety is an illusion. The tiny European nation-states are no match for Russia in an armed contest, and as Russia continues to become stronger and more confident, it will probably become increasingly more aggressive.

Only a united Europe can restore the might of the continent, stand up to the eastern giants and reclaim its influence in the world. Europe needs an European army capable of matching those of the United States and Russia. Only then can Europe ensure its safety, its borders, its independence, its pride and its influence. An European army shouldn't be used to attack other peoples, but is essential to ensure that the people of Europe is safe and is capable of projecting its influence unto the world in a way that is beneficial to both Europeans and non-Europeans.

Furthermore, the constitution of pan-European Armed Forces, under the control of the EU, is a necessary step towards the creation of an European super-state. This would be a true union of the European peoples, supported by institutions, officials and armed forces capable of returning Europe to a position of leadership in the world. The existence of an European army would truly turn the European Union into a world power, capable not only of assuring the integrity of its territory and the safety of its citizens, but also of deciding the course of world events in the way that the United States, Russia and China are currently able to do. A common European army also means a common European foreign policy, an ideal that has so far proved elusive. It is, nevertheless, an essential ingredient in the construction of a Europe that is strong both internally and externally.

Nova Europa: Europe's Second Renaissance (1)

 

Not so long ago, only one hundred years or less, Europe was the centre of the whole world. It was only in 1914, with the outbreak of the Great War, that it would begin to follow a path that could only lead to its ultimate demise and to the inevitable loss of its position of dominance and prestige.

A century later, Europe is, apparently, past its prime. It is weak, tired and divided, unable to regain its past influence and glory. Our Europe, today, is but a shadow of its former glorious self, a continent that conquered  and ruled an entire world and ushered it into an age of lights in the realms of science and ideas.

In the beginning of the XXI century, the centre of the world is the United States of America. Europe does not even come second, lagging behind the great powers of the East in more ways than one. All that Europe has is its legacy, as well as a hopeful future that it must strive to achieve.

This much, however, cannot be done if Europe is to remain petty, scared, tired, old and, above all things, divided in its institutions and intents. The world of the XXI century will be inevitably ruled by its giants. The United States is joined in this club by powers such as Russia, China, India or Brazil, countries that, alone, are equal in size and population to the whole of the European continent, home to more than 40 nations at present.

It must therefore become obvious to all, especially to Europeans themselves, that the European nations cannot regain a position of dominance standing separately from each other as they have done in the past. The path of an Europe divided leads to a future of irrelevance in the world stage, or worse. The only way to insure the very survival of these small nations is by a great alliance of the European peoples. Alone, each of these countries, even the most powerful ones such as England, France and Germany, will forever be at the mercy of the will of the great giants of the modern world. Yet, together, Europeans would not only match the power of these giant nations, they would be more powerful than any of them.

This much, should certainly appear obvious to Europeans, old and young, rich and poor, from the west and the east and from north and south. Yet, against all odds, this is not the case. As I write, European politicians and peoples proceed with their everlasting petty bickering, instead of doing what is logical and much needed for their own good and for the welfare of their sons and the sons of their sons.

This is why I write these words. Because it is of great importance for Europe and its young sons and daughters to realize that a different future, a better future, is within reach. We need only to believe in it and grab it.

What Europe needs is a desire for the right kind of change as well as the energy and the will to pursue it. This is not out of reach, on the contrary. A new generation of Europeans, with a clear goal in mind and the desire to pursue it, is really all it takes. What Europe needs is a second renaissance and Europeans can give it to her if they find the courage to believe in it. This is why I write these words. Words inspire ideals. Ideals lead to actions. Actions lead to change, and that is how dreams come true.

A vision of a new Europe, of a better Europe, starts with the union of its nations. Without this union, nothing can be achieved. It is the union of its parts what will give Europe the strength it so desperately needs.

A united Europe would have around 500 million souls, more than three times Russia's population, almost twice as many people as the United States and almost half of China's or India's. It would control a territory comparable in size to that of the United States, especially if we exclude Alaska. It would also have the biggest economy in the world, slightly bigger than the American economy, one and a half times the Chinese economy and about eight times bigger than the economies of Russia, India or Brazil.    

Size, population and economic power are the ingredients Europe needs to compete on the world stage and win. In order to regain its pride and glory, there cannot be a better solution for Europe than union. These are the raw materials Europe needs to become great again, to be able to insure its own safety in the future and to enter a new era of prosperity in its history. A period of growth, innovation and self-improvement that could become the model for all the other peoples of the world to follow. Europe deserves nothing less from its new generations.

Do works of art and essays have value in themselves or do they only acquire value after they gain recognition form third parties?

Let me start with an example. Consider for a minute Thomas Hobbes' Magnum Ops The Leviathan. His most famous work is widely considered to be a master piece of Western Philosophy and one of the most important essays ever written on the topic of Political Philosophy. The recognition it enjoys comes from academic philosophers around the world ho make sure that the work is constantly discussed, debated and thought to philosophy studenDivine Comedy, of which the same things could be said, except in the field of literature instead of philosophy. Thirdly, consider Leonardo da Vinci's most famous painting, the Mona Lisa. Every day thousands of people pay good money and stand in a big line just to be able to look for some instants at da Vinci's centenary creation. It is praised by many as one of the landmarks of painting and is one of the most famous work of art of all time. You can probably find a copy of it in almost every introduction to art history book ever published.

ts. Now consider Dante's

            One of the things these three works have in common is that they all enjoy nearly universal levels of recognition in their respective fields. They are celebrated to the extent that for someone to say that they are not as good as most people say they are sounds like sacrilege. Now imagine for an instant that none of these three works ever came to public knowledge. That, in an alternative version of history, Thomas Hobbes' died before he was able to publish The Leviathan, that Dante's enemies managed to prevent the publication of his work and that the Mona Lisa was bought by a private collector and kept inside of a mansion away from the sights of the outside world until now. In this alternative version of history, none of these three masterpieces ever got any recognition whatsoever. They were produced and then forgotten, like it happens to so many other works, less fortunate than these ones. One must wonder then if, deprived from recognition, the three works could still be considered as universal master pieces. In other words, would they still have the same intrinsic value?

            I believe they would have the same intrinsic value, even though they wouldn't have the same monetary value or the same value of public recognition. Yet none of these things seem to be intrinsically necessary for a work of art or an essay to have genuine value, a type of value that exists in itself, independent of third party recognition. After all, a work of philosophy's true purpose should be to shed light into difficult questions, and it could still do this without ever attaining recognition by a considerable number of people. Similarly, Dante's Divine Comedy and Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa succeed in invoking different kinds of beauty, literary and visual, regardless of the fact of being read or seen by a number of people. They are beautiful, even if no one reads or sees them, the same way a splendid looking flower can be marvelously beautiful even if its hidden somewhere in the deeps of the Amazon jungle or a woman might be beautiful even if she is hidden under a veil. The woman in the example doesn't cease to be beautiful just because her beauty is hidden beneath a veil. Her beauty is not attained when the veil is lifted, since it was there all along. The same exact thing could be said about the Mona Lisa or the Divine Comedy. Even if people couldn't see the Mona Lisa because it was hidden in a private mansion, that doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa would stop to be beautiful. Likewise, if the Divine Comedy was hidden from public knowledge by Dante's enemies, that wouldn't mean that it was any less accomplished as a work of art. And if the public suddenly discovered these works of art the recognition wouldn't confer them value, rather, their value would simply become apparent for the first time to the general public.   

            It seems then that it is reasonable to claim that there is such a thing as an intrinsic value to works of art and essays, that is independent from the recognition conferred upon them by the public. In the case of works of art this inherent quality might be associated with beauty, whereas in the case of essays it could be associated with truth or knowledge.

As a conclusion, even if it had never been read by anyone but the writer, Thomas Hobbes' The Leviathan would still be his Magnum Ops. Even if the verses of the Divine Comedy had never become globally celebrated, it would still be just as good as a work of literature. And if the Mona Lisa hadn't found its place in the world, being viewed by millions every year, it would still be just as beautiful and thus just as inherently valuable.

            As a final note, I must add that even in spite of the conclusions put forward by this essay, it must be acknowledged that the reach and level of recognition of a work of art or essay can produce certain results that would not happen if that work remained unknown. In other words, a great work can produce a legacy that necessarily relies on its recognition and the impact it has on society. For example, Hobbes' Leviathan was instrumental in creating a whole current in political philosophy. Dante's Divine Comedy on the other hand had an important contribution to the formation of the Italian language, just like William Shakespeare's body of work did for the English language. Another good example is Marx work that ultimately had a big impact on the geo-politics of the twenty first century, which wouldn't have happened if it had remained confined to a small circle of people. Widespread reach and recognition can thus produce a legacy for the work of art or philosophy that would otherwise never come into existence.

Yet even in spite of this  fact it should not be forgotten that the intrinsic value of any work is not dependent on anyone or anything but itself.

Fundamentals

One thing you learn at university is that you should start every essay by saying what it is that you are going to argue and why you find the need to do so. This last part is especially true when it comes to dissertations of any kind, where it is you, the student, who has to come up with the title by yourself. In sum, you're supposed to convince the reader that what you are going to say next matters for a reason. In a way, this is what this article is about. I shall simply call it, fundamentals.

            Let me try to be a little bit clearer. A question that haunts me is why do I even bother to write? Why am I writing this article right now? Why do I write any article at all? When I was at uni this didn't seem like a question at all. I wrote because I was supposed to, I didn't have any other choice. If I didn't write, I would fail and never graduate. So when you are a student, writing is absolutely logical, since it fulfills a very clear, and essential purpose. The problem is, I'm not a student any more. The same could be said about a teacher or a researcher (they are often the same person anyway) at University. The teacher writes in order to receive a paycheck at the end of the month. He doesn't need any more justification than that because that alone would be good enough. Once again, we see that in the teacher's case writing is both logical and essential.

            When you leave the realm of academia however, things begin to get a little bit tricky. A little bit less obvious. There is of course the professional writer, who writes for money. The professional writer gets paid to write and this is what justifies his work. As long as he gets money, as long as he can make a living out of it, writing in his case is justified. This mostly applies to the writers of stories though. After all, how many non academic philosophers out there get paid for their work? Very few if any I would say. You have all those self-help writers of course but I don't wanna discuss that here because I have trouble even calling them writers at all.

            Things get even trickier when money is out of the equation. You are then left with lunatics like me, that write even though they don't have any single objective purposes in mind while they write. No one is ever going to pay me for writing this, that is a certainty. And here I am, wasting yet another hot afternoon in Rio typing at this keyboard. And even I wonder, why do I bother to do it?

            That being said, I'm hardly the only one in this position. Think about all the bloggers typing out their thoughts right now throughout the virtual, multilingual hyperspace twenty first centurers inhabit part-time. Filing their blogs with stories and thoughts, documenting either their lives or their interests with the help of this new technology. And you gotta wonder, why do they all do it?

            Assuming that we aren't all crazy, there must be something to it. Something that goes beyond the need to get good grades or to get a paycheck at the end of the month. Maybe money isn't everything after all, especially when it comes to writers. This one realization alone shouldn't be underestimated since it seems to disprove the theory that money validates someone as a worthy writer. After all, if money isn't everything a writer is after then even if he doesn't get any money that can't possibly mean that he has failed in his intent. After all it wasn't money he was after in the first place, so how can he be blamed for not getting money with his work? One can't possibly be deemed as a failure by not achieving what one isn't after.

            Yet, if it isn't money what people like me are after, what is it then? One option is that they simply want to share the events of their lives, their interests or their thoughts with other people, mostly people that are relatively close to them like friends, family and other acquaintances but maybe total strangers too. I shall call this the purpose of sharing.

            I shall now talk about yet another reason that drives me and others like me to write. This reason is just as powerful, if not more, than the previous one. I shall call it the purpose of recognition. Not a lot needs to be said about this reason in order to be understood, such is the instant familiarity most people will feel in relation to it. It is part of human nature to desire the recognition of our peers, be that for our virtues or our actions. Everyone wants to feel important and appreciated by the other members of our species. So one of the reasons that leads anyone to produce something beautiful or meaningful is precisely to attain the admiration of others. In some extreme cases, one can even hope to see his or her name in the history books, and thus achieve great glory and even, to some extent, conquer immortality itself.

            I believe that there is yet one last reason I must mention, even if this one is the most obscure of all. It has to do with some kind of inner value that can be attributed either to the work produced or to the very act of producing the work. It could be argued that these things alone could have enough value as to justify the activity of writing by the writer, and thus vindicate his efforts independently of any other persons. In sum, I would like to argue that in some cases writing has value even if no one else ever reads what has been written, and the writer is a worthy writer even if no one else gets to read what he writes. 

            I hope to have proven here that there are other aspects to writing, other ways to vindicate the writer rather than getting paid to write something. If not, I believe that I have at least been successful at casting a shadow of doubt on what I believe is a misconception that finds at least some degree of popularity in our society, the conception that the only valuable writings are those that someone is willing to pay for. 

Twenty First Century Writer

I'm writing this now. I've written a bunch of things in the past. In primary school, when I barely knew how to write, I was already writing stories and many other things. And then I kept writing. I wrote through middle school and high school. I would write things and a teacher would tell me if they were right or wrong, if they were good or bad. I did al kinds of writing growing up like most of us do. Some people never get the hang of it, others like me become fascinated by it. Maybe I'm a lousy writer, that's a definite possibility. Or maybe I'm a decent one, I don't really know. What is certain is that here I am, a 28 year old, sitting on a chair in a hot afternoon in Rio and still writing. I wrote through most of my twenties. In many different countries. I wrote to graduate from University. I even wrote a novel. And here I am now, writing again.

            Some people my age have never read a whole book in their lives. Most people my age have never written a whole book so far. Most people in the planet never get to write a book ever. A few write for a living, others, like myself, mostly just write because they want to. They never get a penny for it.

            I'm not sure I truly knew what I meant when I told people that I wanted to be a writer. I think I meant that I wanted to be a professional writer. To write novels and get paid to write them. So far I wrote one novel and I'm not even sure I like it. To be honest, I'm not even sure if it's any good. Maybe I'm a lousy writer after all, I don't know. All my friends and family tell me I'm a good writer but they wouldn't tell me the truth if I were a terrible one. So I don't really know. I'm not even sure if I want to be a writer anymore.

            Not so long ago when people asked me what I did for a living I would tell them I was a writer. That I was writing my first novel. Now I don't tell them I'm a writer anymore. They used to look at me funny because it's not everyday that you meet a writer. People won't even take you seriously until you publish your first book. 

            I finished my first novel six months ago. It took me about an year and a half to write it. Some times I think it sucks. Some times I think that it's ok. I think I stopped being a writer then. I don't even know what I am now. When people ask me what I do now sometimes I say I'm unemployed. That's probably the closest thing to the truth. It doesn't sound that good. I spent twenty six years of my life studying to be unemployed. That's pretty pathetic.

            So I'm writing this now and I'm unemployed. I feel like I don't even have the right to write it. It doesn't really matter. It's not like a lot of people will read it. One or two people maybe. Some of my loyal friends and readers. Maybe one or two people will read this and when they do they won't know what to make of it. Maybe next time they won't read it, maybe next time I'll write an article and no one will read it. It will just lay there, virgin, unexplored, uncharted, unknown. Words in a computer screen, in a tablet, on a kindle, lost in the oblivion of information. It will be as if it has never existed.

            I feel that the big question here is "who do I write for?" Do I write for myself? Do I write for the people I know, my friends and family? Do I write for the whole of humanity? I feel that many people feel that a writer's only goal should be writing for money. Once a guy told me that a writer is someone who gets paid to write. This was in Poland. That was probably one of the most depressing things I ever heard anyone say to me, anywhere, anytime. I want to believe that he is wrong. I want to believe that there is more to it than that. I want to believe that what I'm doing right now is not completely pointless. I want to believe that somebody other than me is reading this right now, or five minutes from now, or an hour from now, or tomorrow, or the following year. I wanna believe that you are reading every word and that you are feeling what I'm feeling as I write them. Maybe you too would like to be a writer and in that case I hope that you are braver than me and you keep writing just because you want to write, even if no one else cares.

Why the Protesters in Brazil are Wrong

   

In a globalized world such as ours, there is a tendency for important, localized events to become global every once in a while. This seems to be the case in the current situation in Brazil. Most people around the world seem to be taking the protester’s side in this case. Personally, I think this is a mistake, and I would like to explain why I think that way.

            One of my big issues with the protesters is that they seem to be uncertain about what they are actually protesting against. In reality, this whole affair originated as a specific protest against the rise of public transportation fares. So far so good. After all, the people had the right to protest against the rise of prices in an area that is of vital importance to them. Regardless of being right or wrong, at the very least they had a specific complaint in mind. It was a request that could be easily understood: lower the price of bus tickets to their former rates!

The problem however, is that this reasonable, easily understandable request, became something much more generic and, consequentially, more confusing and less clear. This is true to the extent that most people observing these events from all four corners of the world can’t even figure out what exactly the protests in Brazil are about. If not, read the article below and note how in the comments section people can’t even agree on what the object of  the protest is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/21/brazil-protests-president-emergency-meeting

I believe this is a huge problem since when a protest loses its focus it also tends to lose its legitimacy. After all, what are the protests in Brazil really about? At first, people were protesting against the raise in public-transportation fares. Clear enough. As a result, previous prices were reinstated as The Guardian reports. So, one would think that the protests would cease because the initial request of the people was fulfilled. Yet this is obviously not the case here.

In fact, it seems that the protests become bigger and meaner every day that passes. Logically, one can only conclude that this is because the original protest has mutated into a different, more complex creature. And this is when things get messy. At this moment the protests in Brazil are not about bus fares any more. They are about the Confederations Cup, the World Cup and the 2016 summer Olympics. Not only that, they’re about the corruption in Brazilian politics, the rise of inflation in Brazil, the lack of security and any other things that are wrong in the country.

As a result of the diversification of the motives of the revolt, what we have now is an all-encompassing massive popular protest. This is what the Brazilian government has to deal with at this point.

Let us now consider the criticisms against the three big sporting competitions: the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup, the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 summer Olympics.

The most common form of criticism against these competitions is directed towards the Brazilian government for having allowed these competitions to take place in Brazil. The protesters argue that the money devoted to the organizing of these competitions would have been better spent in areas like education and healthcare.

This is a quite objective and reasonable claim. I would even go further and say that this is a claim that I could embrace myself. I think however that some further considerations should also be taken into account.

First, it should be noted that undertaking these efforts will give prestige and visibility to the country. Investing money on healthcare and education is crucial, but this doesn’t mean that culture should be altogether discarded. In fact, I would argue that a truly prosperous and successful country in not simply a country that can feed and educate its citizens. It should do more than that. It should go beyond. It should make its residents proud to live within its borders. This is something that food and shelter alone cannot guarantee but that culture and sports are adept at achieving in conjunction with the former.   

Secondly, it is nothing short of wishful thinking to assume that the problems regarding education and healthcare in Brazil are directly related to the Confederations Cup/World Cup and Olympics, and that they would be solved if these competitions didn’t occur in Brazil in this period. The truth is that even if these competitions weren’t held in Brazil public education and healthcare would still be just as bad. These are deep structural problems and need long-term solutions in order to be solved. The lack of capacity of the Brazilian people to think long-term is more harmful to the country than one hundred FIFA world cups.

Finally, it is important to consider that, in any case, these demonstrations came too late. Had they occurred earlier, at the time when Brazil was still applying to host these competitions, I would have welcomed them and praised them. The Brazilian people would have demonstrated seriousness and democratic spirit by actively trying to shift the country’s decision making. But these demonstrations are happening now, precisely when the confederations cup is taking place! The protesters cannot possibly achieve anything good at this point. In reality, what the Brazilian people is effectively doing is telling the world that they are not able to uphold their commitments, which is essentially what organizing a first-tier international event amounts to. They are telling the world, in the way of convoluted and at times even violent protests that Brazil is a third world country incapable of exercising the sort of leadership in the world stage that one would expect from a country with its size, population and resources.   

Sources:

-The Guardian

-MARCA