A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage)
archives of old posts
The last 100 posts, according
The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours |
of past 30 days |
of 2002 |
of 2003 |
of 2004 |
of 2005 |
of 2006 |
of 2007 |
of 2008 |
of 2009 |
of 2010 |
of 2011 |
of 2012 |
of 2013 |
of 2014 |
of 2015 |
of 2016 |
Syndication Of A-Infos - including
RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
(en) France, Alternative Libertaire AL #269 - Economy: An inoffensive strategy against capitalism (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:18:26 +0200
Citizenship generally proposes a recycling of past receipts, which neither live up to the
crisis encountered by capitalism nor politically satisfying, promising only a better
management of capitalism. ---- Citizenship is a nebula, a scattered movement, without a
coherent program, but reproducing and mixing the analyzes and propositions of
altercapitalist authors mediated. However, these authors lead us into an impasse to end
crises and inequalities. ---- Bernard Friot: a revised economic collectivism ---- Bernard
Friot's society project is based on five pillars: the abolition of lucrative property,
replaced by customary ownership, the payment of a lifetime wage, remuneration for
qualification (on a scale of one to four times The smic, with a net smic to 1500 euros),
the extension of the contribution as an alternative to the direct wage, monetary creation
without credit. It reminds us greatly of the basis of economic collectivism, combining
collective property (here governed by the state), and commercial distribution (contrary to
communism, which suppresses it).
The first problem is the concept of lucrative property. It is not private property. It
refers to that of owners of large means of production, generating large profits, but does
not include small commercial property. However, private commercial property, whether
large or small, necessarily involves the obligation to sell the goods and at the same time
the uncertainty of selling them, selling them on time and at the right price, in order to
guarantee their wages And the sustainability of the activity. It can lead to lower
incomes, redundancies, bankruptcies, and, by domino effect, crises. To avoid such
problems, all private property should be abolished.
With the salary for life, an individual, from his majority to his death, would be entitled
to a salary, which would be revalued upwards by qualification and would remain the same at
the time of retirement. In the spirit, whether to guarantee a right of access to
consumption for life is quite right. However, the wage and monetary form is open to
criticism. It implies a posteriori socialization of production, supply and demand meeting
only on the market - and not upstream (censuses and other democratic and rational
expectations). This results in high risks of disproportionate production (overproduction
on the one hand, shortage on the other), resulting in dissatisfaction with needs, an
overabundance of unsaleable goods (constituting an enormous waste), and maintaining In
spite of the stated intentions, of a labor market.
Remuneration for qualification is equally problematic. A business manager or a university
professor would earn 6000 euros per month. An unqualified employee would receive 1500
euros. This society would still be very unequal, legitimized by the principle "to each
according to his diploma" and not "to each according to his needs". However, the
justification of the income hierarchy was deconstructed by Castoriadis, in the name of
complementarity of tasks, of self-management versatility, but also, possibly, for an
inverted hierarchy in favor of the most painful or dangerous activities. In addition,
instead of a revenue hierarchy, for these particular activities, reductions in working
hours and / or job rotations could be introduced.
There remains the question of how this system should be financed. If the extension of the
social contribution would allow financial equalization between enterprises (wage payments
and means of production), the structures underlying the industrial and commercial
crisiswould remain intact and their effects would be recurrent. It would result, in
times of crises, the same effects as with capitalism.
Friot proposes a solution to remedy this problem: monetary creation without credit.
However, the operation of this measure is not clearly explained. It is therefore difficult
to assess its potential effectiveness. The problem is that, like the Keynesians, it refers
the causes of overproduction crises to a default of means of payment, which could be
solved by turning the printing press. However, such a policy entails high risks of
inflation, without, however, addressing the problem at its root.
Finally, Friot intends to redefine value as "the power to determine what is worth," rather
than as a reflection of the "average social time of production". He thus eludes the
analysis of value as a social relation of production. However, by maintaining the concrete
structures of the valorization of capital (bourgeois private ownership or bureaucracy and
the market) and their interactions, we can not assert that dynamics no longer operate. By
not recognizing Marx's definition of value, structures would continue to operate in an
invisible way. Society would suffer crises, without identifying the causes or being able
to act intentionally to suppress them.
Jean-Marie Harribey: the pseudo-autonomy of the non-market sector
Harribey currently advocates the extension of the non-market public sector to the
detriment of the commercial private sector. The commercial sector, confronted with
serious problems of valorisation, seems to be moving towards an impassable systemic limit.
It should disappear and give way to a non-market economy. Harribey here seems to
understand the problem and hold the solution. However, it considers that the non-market
sector would be self-financed (financed by the State, local authorities and local
authorities). Public authorities finance services by indirect levies on wages (taxes) and
profits (business taxes and property taxes). The more the public non-market sector
develops in relation to the market sector, the more the levies on the value produced are
important. In this way, companies find it difficult to finance themselves, while at the
same time they will experience it in order to enhance themselves, because of the systemic
dynamics of capitalism. All this can only lead to a crisis. There can therefore be no
gradual and harmonious economic transition from the private to the non-commercial public.
To put an end to the mode of commercial distribution, a revolution, eliminating private
ownership of the means of production and associating all enterprises with each other, is
Frédéric Lordon: Keynes and Proudhon, for the best and especially for the worst!
The economic positions of Frédéric Lordon are mainly developed in the Diplomatic World. It
is part of the Keynesian prism of the Terrified Economists. The latter advocates a revival
of the economy by public investment on credit (debt), legal sovereignty, even monetary,
Keynesians view overproduction crises as under-consumption crises. On the one hand, there
would be people who do not have enough money, on the other, people who have money, but
who, in the face of a pessimistic economic situation, are provident and prefer to save. To
solve this problem, it would be necessary to inject money into the economy, to resort to
monetary creation. The State should then intervene for this purpose, and could put in
place policies of major works. In doing so, he will continue to go into debt, hoping to
fill the debts, at least the excessive debts later. The Keynesians do not look for a
balanced budget, but an acceptable level of indebtedness. Keynesianism is complemented by
the idea that debt is a means of maintaining social ties, but also of preventing war. But
this is historically false. The 1930s gave birth to "War Keynesianism" in the major
warlike countries of the Second World War. This policy is therefore ineffective, as are
protectionism and sovereignty, which did not really have any convincing effects in the
crises of the 1930s and 1974. Finally, considering finance as an unproductive vampire, To
remedy this, restrictive measures such as Slamor, more radical, to hang creditors and
financiers, testifies to an incomprehension of the relations between "real" and
"fictitious" capital. It was the massive development of finance and credit that, after the
1974 crisis, helped to avoid the collapse of growth rates. If they are successful, with
other capitalist measures in an unproductive financial over-accumulation, regulate
capitalism in this way will not prevent the crisis of value to manifest again.
Finally, Lordon, also drawing inspiration from a truncated self-management-libertarian
conceptionapproaching Proudhon, also speaks of the suppression of lucrative ownership
and direct management of enterprises by employees. Cooperativism and mutualism do not lead
to a harmonious capitalism without patrons or shareholders. They had already been refuted
by Marx and Bakunin in the international premiere, as now forms of private property and
market, and thus social inequalities and crises. Defending such a project is a regression
for the labor movement.
A critique of neo-liberalism that leads to a dead end
As we can see, citizenship does not have a common and coherent economic program, and
consists mainly of a rejection of neoliberalism. It criticizes inequalities only in the
name of a more just, but not egalitarian, distribution of wealth. It does not necessarily
reject private ownership and the market, but it defends small businesses against major
trusts, proximity trading against international trade. Now, as Marx has demonstrated, the
very existence of the pair of private property and merchant exchange implies the
possibility of crises. To maintain these structures is to condemn oneself to suffer them,
in one way or another. To change society, citizen movements should get rid of their
prominent altercapitalist figures, and review their analyzes, projects and strategies.
Floran Palin (AL Marne)
Étienne Chouard: pseudo-anticapitalism and confusionism
Chouard is in a confusing line. It is not to be put on the same level as the authors
mentioned in the article opposite, which are clearly on the side of the social movement.
However, from an economic point of view, it is more or less in line with the overwhelming
economists. He is critical of neoliberalism, of free trade, and is particularly critical
of private banks and finance. He also spoke in favor of protectionism and sovereignty. It
is known, besides its doubtful proposals for rewriting the constitution and drawing lots,
for its interventions on the debt. According to him, it would be due to excessive
predation of finance, exorbitant interest rates, and ultimately to a lack of control over
monetary policies. Again, this is a superficial criticism of capitalism. "Excessive"
interest on the debt can not conceal the fact that there is a "net" debt, which will
certainly not be met and will only increase due to devaluation. Not accepting that the
fundamental problem stems from the private ownership of the means of production and the
market, Chouard turns around, calling bankers and financiers "real fascists" and extreme
right-wing personalities of " Resistant ". Instead of being part of a "fascist" elite
duality against good people, which can only lead to disastrous economic, social and
political crises, we should rather consider capitalism as a hydra whose representatives of
capital (FN , LR, PS etc., bosses, bankers, financiers), each constituting one of the
heads, while it is to be destroyed at the base.
"The lucrative property", N. Chomel, to be read on the site of Salary Network.
Cornelius Castoriadis, "Self-management and hierarchy", to be read on infokiosques.ne.
Alain Bihr, Reproduction of Capital, Volume II, Chapter 16, to be read at http:
Alain Bihr, "Universalize wages or suppress wage-earning? About Bernard Friot's "The
issue of wages", to be read on http://alencontre.org .
"The law of value", with Jean-Marie Harribey and Bernard Friot for the Librairie
Tropiques, to listen on http://ekouter.net .
Anglo-Saxon acronym, translated as "authorized shareholder's margin": confiscatory tax
beyond a certain tranche, the maximum amount of income allowed.
Ernst Lohoff & Norbert Trenkle, The Great Devaluation.
"Frederic Lordon, wolf or sheep? " Alternative Libertaire, in October 2016, to read on
Fourth Congress of the First International, Basel, 1869.
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-Infos Information Center