Manifesto for a European Revolution 2011 juin 8
tags: basic income, Capitalism, Crisis, economics, Révolution
by Stan
Thanks to some readers of this blog who enjoyed my last post Manifesto for a #frenchrevolution [in French], we now have an English version of this post. Many thanks for those involved in the translation, especially Changaco and Jason Cook. Hope it will make some fresh ideas spread the world!The current protests in Spain, as well as Greece and Portugal are
doomed to fail because they don’t suggest any real alternative society
project. Not for lack of will though: the slogans show us that there is a
desire for deep changes, to go back to certain principles such as more
social justice. However, mislead by the media and the obsolete speeches
of politicians, people have difficulty thinking differently through
commonly accepted assumptions. This naturally results in a lack of
imagination, ambition, and leads to a lack of solutions.
The proposed reforms [fr], though desirable in some cases, merely try to reduce the harm instead of dealing with the initial causes.Add to that the fact that France has not yes suffered as much from
the crisis. Thanks to existing welfare protections (though failing),
there are still many people who believe they have
something to lose in an hypothetical revolution. For this reason we will not see a
revolution here in the very near future. Common people are just not
ready to go to the street except for protecting their personal
interests. We are witnessing only a small revolt from those who are the
most directly affected by the decline of the West. Plus some people who
really understand the reasons why these people rise up.
In a nutshell,
we are only at best experiencing a pre-revolutionary stage, in which indignation rises, but without a new ideology strong and consensual enough to propose.
Fixing problems at the sourceTo overcome this stage, we need to identify clearly the origins of
the problems and propose ensuing measures. However, detecting the origin
of society’s troubles imply thinking in a totally different way. It is
necessary to avoid the usual terms of debate.
Let us begin by addressing a number of false debates currently soiling the perception of economic issues.
The fight against unemploymentFor thirty years now, France (and mostly Southern Europe) is hurting
from mass unemployment. The fight against unemployment imposed itself as
essential to reduce income inequality, exclusion, and so on. The
problem is that the « right to work », sometimes considered as a
fundamental right, drift towards a duty : everybody must work or be
condemned to exclusion. However, is full-time employment really an end
in itself?
Not only is full-time employment today unachievable (as I already claimed here [fr]) , but
being employed is no longer the ideal way for integration or self-development.Why? Precisely because public policies aim at employment growth
without considering real usefulness of those jobs created, since
unemployed people are seen as burdens for society. People could be hired
to dig holes, and refill them… nobody would care! Why bother, after
all, as long as everybody is at work, and that it generates economic
growth!
Isn’t the real concern to make it possible for everyone to exert a
socially-useful activity ?
The « protection » of employeesAs a direct consequence of the end of the full-time employment dogma
the concept of employee protection no longer makes sense. Indeed,
current reasons for workers protection are:
perception of employment as a norm, and non-existence of an unemployed individual in society’s eyes. At best, one is seen as an « idle active », at worst as one needing assistance, a parasite, a 2nd-class citizen.
From that point of view, it is indeed meaningful to protect the
contract of employment, since it is the Grail of every citizen. Today
however, protecting workers is a costly nuisance.
To cope with international competition between workers companies
currently choose to relocate or to increase productivity. In both cases,
results are similar:
under the pressure of mass unemployment,
most of the workers can only be submissive to the conditions imposed by
the companies: low wages, precarious contracts, and other undesirable
working conditions.
Meanwhile, we are told that workers have to be protected against abusive or economically-unjustified lay-offs.
The truth is,
employee protection only encourages companies to opt for more precariousness of their employees (for instance with short-term contracts). And when it is not possible to get rid of workers, as often reported in the news [fr],
Machiavellian strategies are set up to push them to their limits, so
that they quit the jobs themselves. Meanwhile, other people are
irremediably excluded from the job market: the women for fear of the
« happy event » (T.N. pregnancy (enjoy the irony)), the young people for
their « lack of experience », the old people for their « lack of
flexibility », etc… Eventually, worker protection induces only more
social inequalities.
We end up with a society of castes where
some people receive – by chance – a contract that protects them, while
others are excluded from the market, fallen into the sadly common
phenomenon of the « welfare trap ».The growth mythEconomic growth was an obvious factor of development during the 20th
century. But what about the 21st? In many aspects, growth has become
useless. Productivity gains and globalization enable capital owners to
better exploit growth of global demand without necessarily creating more
human labor. Disaster? At first sight, yes. However, with reflection,
isn’t it normal that Humans could work less and less? Thus saving time for self-development?
I believe so.
The problem is not that labor demand is
decreasing, but in the fact that the distribution of productivity gains
are unevenly distributed in society! Indeed, the tiny bit of
remaining growth eventually enriches a small minority, in favor of
cartels who carefully avoid competition, while locking up their markets.
In the best case, productivity gains allow a price drop, but, as
mass-unemployment is structurally maintained, there is little chance for
the middle-class and the poor to receive benefits from this economical
growth. Minimum wages barely follow the general level of prices (which
is calculated from debatable method). On the other hand, dividends are
getting fatter and fatter. As a logical consequence, inequalities grow,
and the lower-class standard of living keeps decreasing.
And they tell us that economic growth is positive? Growth is not the solution. I would say that it is rather more of a problem…
The illegitimate debt paybackStill, there is a reason that justifies the need for growth: debt reimbursement !
Without success in increasing production at the end of «
The Glorious Thirthy », our states massively contracted debts in order to support demand,
and thus keep providing demand to companies. But this debt has to be
reimbursed someday, as well as the corresponding interests! In a
socially unjust way,
our leaders are reducing public spending to
pay the bill of the last century’s growth, by dipping into young
generations’ future funding.
In addition, as states forbid themselves to resort to debt monetization,
this debt benefits the same people (yes, once again): those who have capital to fructify.
Contrary to what we are supposed to believe, debt reimbursement is
illegitimate. Morally, first of all, there is no point in forcing future
generations to pay back a debt that doesn’t benefit them. Moreover, it
is economically intolerable, because there is no reason that a state
cannot resort to debt monetization to finance public investments.
In fact,
the argument of debt payback is based on disputable monetary doctrines:
arguing that any monetary creation would be inflationary, the
governments were forbidden to borrow from their central banks, leaving
them at the mercy of the markets, as the Greek crisis perfectly
illustrates. Not only is fighting inflation a false pretense that mainly
maintains the annuities of a minority, but keeping the BCE’s rates high
mechanically causes unemployment.
The biggest irony is that, when bankrupted banks have to be rescued, monetary policies are quickly forgotten.
Does
it make any sense that the European Central Bank is allowed to provide
billions to save banks, but not a cent for public policies funding?The wrong fight against speculationAnother cliché of politics is to regulate finance and fight speculation.
Without neglecting the negative effects of finance on the real economy, we must not fight the wrong fight.
Life insurances, mortgages, mutual funds… The requirement of
profitability for savers implies a speculative management which
generates gains.
Unless considering that profits from financial investments are unfair, fighting speculation frontally is vain. The taxation of financial transactions, for example, could slow
exchanges a bit, but would mostly increase the costs of portfolio
management, while the profits of banks would stay untouched.
Likewise, the idea of decreasing the bank’s leverage (as Basel III accords
will impose from 2013) is very ironic, because it will curb lendings,
slowing down growth durability in developed countries. Without a
re-foundation of the monetary system, these types of reforms will lead
to failure.
Actually, the true problem is that
the banking sector is far too concentrated,
and acts as an uncontrollable lobbying group because it has a
tremendous power: that of creating money, to finance (or not)
governments, businesses, and take hostage the citizens’ deposits. Can
you see the paradox?
Banks are private actors who manage a public good – the money – as a commodity.We entrust private actors – who don’t answer to society – the task of
ensuring that money – an emanation of a sovereign state – circulates
well. But in practice, it mostly gives banks the power to bring down any
economy of the world for their own benefit. No matter, they are «
too big to fail » anyway.
Is the problem really about speculation? Or is it the fact that we
deposit our money blindly into the pot of global finance? Thus allowing
banks to use our deposits to counterfeit money? To harmfully speculate
on the prices of raw materials? To finance businesses that we know
nothing about?
In short, don’t we have better things to do than
put our money in bogus financial products? Isn’t the problem also in our
behaviors? And in the difficulty of creating an alternative banking
system?The State serving inequalitiesFacing all these economic disorders, many think that the State should take back its control over the economy.
Yet,
the State is now totally collaborating with the system.
Seeing its inability to lead the economy towards growth and to restore
full employment and purchasing power, the big businesses are aware of
the enormous negotiating power they have. Especially in a globalized
economy in which cheap labor is in range of relocation, tax havens
within reach of bank transfer.
That way, they obtain subsidies whenever possible in exchange for empty promises such as : «
if you give me 100 million euros, I won’t relocate » or «
if you don’t make laws against piracy, 50,000 jobs will disappear » or, more obviously in the banking case : «
if you don’t save me, the whole economy will collapse ».
Governments treat the big industries sparingly to keep jobs,
growth. But isn’t this at the expense of the rest of the economy?!
Aren’t we supporting certain economic activities with the money of other
taxpayers? Who will help SMEs and artisans while we cherish the big
ones ?The same phenomenon occurs at the level of citizens: there are
categories of people whose rights are different. Particularly in france,
the civil servants are statutorily protected while employees of the
private sector are vulnerable ; we make « gifts » to the rich in the
hope that they won’t relocate their money while we tax the middle class
more to pay back the debt ; we want to force the unemployed to
contribute to the economy while the annuitants effortlessly make their
capital grow in the financial sphere.
Democracies are in complete denial of equality. We live in a society in which
you have to be big in order to exist. Even better is to be
too big to fail (or too big to jail). There is no room for the small ones.
Don’t let them impose their « solutions »We can clearly see that the foundations of the political debate are
biased by an obsolete analysis of the way the system really works.
Whoever rises to power in 2012 [presidential elections are to be held in
France next year], what difference will it make?
They’ll keep telling us that we absolutely need growth and job creations while limiting public spendings to reduce the deficit! Meanwhile, the monetary scam will keep its
vampirism duty on the economy for the benefit of a minority, the
enslavement of the population will continue with the pretext that
everyone must work.
The only advantage if a leftist rises to power is that he will be
milder with some electorally important population classes. But for the
others…
© Víctor Riverola
So, as the problems won’t be resolved, they’ll try to tell us that «
there is no other alternative », that everybody must make efforts and restrict themselves. An era will start then that I previously designated as «
The temptation of authoritarianism [fr] », i.e.
a period when the only way for their obsolete recipes to work will be to apply them by force, sacrificing the remaining parts of our sick democracy.
In short, the disillusion is predictable, the danger is palpable. As
long as those who govern don’t change their way of thinking, as long as
they don’t do a minimum of self-criticizing, we are inevitably heading
for an
economic dictatorship. Will it take long ?
I fear so. And that’s exactly why
we must not expect anything from them.
The change will stem from ourselves, enlightened citizens. It is for us
to say what we want, to require it, and to ensure we are heard. As so
eloquently Gandhi once said :
<blockquote>Be the change you want to see in this world.</blockquote>
Here we come : Manifesto for a 21st centuryStill reading? Thanks !
So now that i made clear what i think of the situation, it is now time
to talk practical, and to write a draft of vital claims to require
first.
1. The Freedom of citizensAbove all,
we reaffirm that freedom of the citizens, as long as it respects the freedom of others, is the foundation of democracy,
and is more important than that of any legal entity. In other words, we
strictly reject any initiative from a publicly-owned corporation, an
association, or even the state, aimed at protecting its own interests by
oppression, control or other restriction of citizens’ freedoms. We
affirm our right to
disobey any institution disrespectful of this freedom.
2. The State at citizen’s serviceBecause
the State only exists by and for the citizens,
any intervention of the former has to benefit everybody, or nobody. On
behalf of the fundamental principle of equality, we reject any
corporatist policy, that essentially consists in granting privileges to a
part of the population, while the others are kept aside. Therefore,
every cent of public budget has to be totally
transparent, and may be disputed by the citizens. Logically, we demand repeal of all tax loopholes and other privileges.
3. For an unconditional guaranteed basic incomeBecause a citizen’s dignity does not vary with the level of public
deficit or the note given by any rating agency, everyone has an
inalienable right to a sufficient income to live modestly but with
dignity. This is why
we require the set-up of a universal guaranteed basic income,
with no condition of income, gender, age, status or else, and
combinable with any other income source. The funding, amount and
accompanying policies will have to be democratically debated and
defined.
4. Currency-based slavery : stop!Arising from the same founding principle of equality, we state that
nobody has the right to make money unless it benefits the citizens directly. Currency is not a commodity, it comes from an
agreement between the citizens and the State, and no one may break it with
impunity by creating money for their own benefit (whether it is central
bank money or money-debt).
Thus, we demand the
abrogation of the 123th article of the Treaty of Lisbon to allow the state to issue money to finance investments democratically considered useful, or better, the distribution of a universal dividend
[fr] (i.e. create money to finance the basic income previously
discussed). This claim must be negotiated at the European level and
implies the creation of a second currency or the abandonment of the euro
if the talks were to fail. Pending the implementation of such reforms,
we refuse to use their « money » as much as possible by creating
ourselves a monetary system that respects the equality of citizens.
5. Respect of the commonsLikewise, we demand total respect for the rights of citizens with respect to the
common goods that belong to them as co-owners of the nation’s wealth. No natural
resources, no national heritage can be exploited economically or damaged
without the consent of the people or financial compensation (the
universal dividend).
We also claim that access to public infrastructures (like
transportation) should be free of charge as soon as the cost (broadly
defined) of marketing is greater than that of making it free.
6. For a real participatory democracyConsidering the failure of the representative democracy that we
observe, we demand a more direct democracy, more participatory, and thus
a
new constitution. We claim the
opening of the legislative process to direct contributions from civil society,
transparency as complete as possible, and a
decentralization of power.
Because of the lack of a real democracy right now, we claim the right
not to endorse the « representatives for the people » by the
recognition of the protest vote and the establishment of a legal quorum to validate or not any
election. We will use that power to de-legitimize any ballot that would
lead us in a direction clearly opposite to the one we offer.
To be discussed
.
Illustration credits fickr
yahaempezado
gillesklein
ايشيبا – ishiba
Reminder : this post is licenced under creative commons by-sa. Feel free to spread it.sources : http://www.tetedequenelle.fr/2011/06/manifesto-for-a-european-revolution/#comment-10532
