A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
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 | of 2017

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]

Date 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[1]. 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[2]. 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 crisis[3]would 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[4].

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[5]. 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 necessary beforehand.

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, protectionism.

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 Slam[6]or, 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[7].

Finally, Lordon, also drawing inspiration from a truncated self-management-libertarian conception[8]approaching 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[9], 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.

[1]"The lucrative property", N. Chomel, to be read on the site of Salary Network.

[2]Cornelius Castoriadis, "Self-management and hierarchy", to be read on infokiosques.ne.

[3]Alain Bihr, Reproduction of Capital, Volume II, Chapter 16, to be read at http: //classiques.uqac.c

[4]Alain Bihr, "Universalize wages or suppress wage-earning? About Bernard Friot's "The issue of wages", to be read on http://alencontre.org .

[5]"The law of value", with Jean-Marie Harribey and Bernard Friot for the Librairie Tropiques, to listen on http://ekouter.net .

[6]Anglo-Saxon acronym, translated as "authorized shareholder's margin": confiscatory tax beyond a certain tranche, the maximum amount of income allowed.

[7]Ernst Lohoff & Norbert Trenkle, The Great Devaluation.

[8]"Frederic Lordon, wolf or sheep? " Alternative Libertaire, in October 2016, to read on http://alternativelibertaire.org .

[9]Fourth Congress of the First International, Basel, 1869.

http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Economie-Une-strategie-inoffensive
_________________________________________
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-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center