A POSTCAPITALIST PARADIGM: THE COMMON GOOD OF ...

of the names most frequently used to refer to the American indigenous
populations was ‘natives’. The status of ‘natives’ which in the colonial
period was applied to the peoples of America and in the forms of oppression
that were established (and which are still maintained), also express
this idea that natives, like nature, had to be treated as enemies to
be subordinated, and not as possible partners.
The triumph of this capitalist version of modernity over other possibilities
also generated a perpetual fragmentation of the various ways of being
and understanding life: the public, which should be viewed as a matter
of collective well-being, as opposed to the private, which does not affect
everyone but only certain individuals: the analytical, which confers a legitimate
and desirable character on rationality, as opposed to the symbolic,
which sees itself as an unvalidated sphere and therefore of lower
value, more concerned with some human beings than with others. The
modern European “We” is seen as being pale-faced, masculine, educated,
master of the public sphere as it exists. At the same time, this
modern European “We” assumed its own historical process was the
only valid one, the universal destiny, always in contrast to ‘The Other’ -
those others who, although they belong to the human race, always see
themselves as being part of the non-human. Thus the face of capitalist
modernity (pale-faced, masculine, educated, conquering) creates around
itself the notion of ‘whiteness’ (Echeverría, 2007:2), which is inherent
in the triumphant spirit of capitalism.
For those peoples who are not part of the modern capitalist “We”, the
contradictions are posed in terms of tradition vs. modernity, civilization
vs. barbarism, development vs. under-development, success vs. failure.
And we are analyzed in this way both by ourselves and by foreigners.
However, all cultural arguments that accommodate capitalism are welcome,
whereas those that question it are seen as ‘essentialist’ and are
condemned. All differences are permitted and can be supported by capitalism
as long as they do not question accumulation and consumption.
We see this every day, thanks to the effective work of the cultural industries,
which have the power to show us that only accumulation and
236