Milena Velba Singlepart

The role of citizens and unions

Many readers of my text seem skeptical about the possibility effectively organize the "double trigger transition" that I recommended: first a transition from capitalism to capitalism gray green, then a transition of this green capitalism to post-capitalism. The question, in fact, is whether the first phase will not make the second impossible.

is a legitimate question, especially in light of recent disaster capitalism announced in supermarkets (Carrefour Belgium, insolvency and the loss of jobs from 1600 to 3000 redundancies): the logic of capitalism does not actual weight to the "human resource", because even a "social" costs less than the maintaining jobs temporarily less profitable. Why? Simply because the social plan is negotiated with the government and unions, and the bargaining power of these local actors is planed face of large groups can move their capital in a playground has become global. The Walloon minister's speech this morning at Andre Antoine RTBF radio confirmed the inability of policy makers: if Carrefour hand, it will try to find "buyers" but what do you think those buyers are going to do? Gently put the stores up and running and keep current employees? Nothing is less certain, even if the buyer is Walloon: what determines his behavior is not his nationality or regional identity, but its quality great capitalist .

Green Capitalism will not change this fact. I wrote in my text and I maintain it. But then I asked you, why advocate still a first transition to green capitalism? My response is mainly pragmatic: at least to mislead me completely on the relationship of forces (and here, believe me, I'd be happy to have me watch my mistake because it would be really liberating!), The current movements Citizens of the base are not yet sufficiently equipped to perform alone direct transition from capitalism gray to post-capitalism. They would have multiple holdings - including land, new jobs and capital, but also and especially new economic and social rights - to be able to operate at once a complete disconnection with respect the whole logic of the present capitalist social democracy. I think that these allocations do not exist today, and they can not be generated without passing through a green capitalism readily socialized and "harnessed" by governments in order to finance and support more soon as possible post-capitalist initiatives .

And it is there, obviously, that hurts ... For one can rightly wonder what team of elected officers shall have the political courage enough to tell the color of the players that green capitalism, moreover, it will support and stimulate. Which national government, regional or local level have the courage to say "investors" (read: financial-economic groups in search of pools of labor to operate) it wants to "attract" (translate: he who wants to offer an exploitable labor cost) than they will reap the profits will be taxed to support alternative economic initiatives? Or if he has the courage, what government will then suffer the consequences, that is to say, a flight of capital to areas more docile? The underlying issue is that of redefining the green capitalism itself: not a kind of neoliberal capitalism, but a sort of "public-private partnership" very tentative and very box that could allow to "play "with the currently dominant logic, just time to move beyond it.

You do not really believe? I can not give you completely wrong. The current power relations, in effect, give more desire to give voice, banging on the table, to rebel violently. But perhaps he should, prior to vilify the idea of a transition with double trigger, wondering about the role that could play the basic citizen movements and unions.

The central imperative is to push our policymakers to exploit the green capitalism the best possible manner to serve as a springboard to the second transition - one that really matters. For this, we must leave no doubt that the threat of disorder and social chaos or even real, and maintained. This is one of the traditional roles of unions, and it is more important than ever. What seems to be missed, however, in the present situation, a vision updated in the name of what this threat of disorder and chaos must be maintained. On behalf of a social model future? Continuing the project of capitalist exploitation of labor, forms green rather than gray? If that vision, not surprising that the idea of a double transition does not recipe.

But unions could possibly ally (even more than they do at the moment) with citizen movements of the base, exactly. Instilling social struggles immediate horizon wider can reinvigorate and courage to Wrestlers often tired of the daily obstacles that they face: the balance of power, cynicism, hypocrisy, double talk, deafness vis-à-vis, economic imperatives coming from outside and uncontrollable, etc.. The wider horizon which can now feed the social struggles in the workplace is simply the class struggle - or, rather, is a vision deeply renewed class struggle : transition to a multitude of citizen initiatives post-capitalist would take the place of the old set, which was otherwise the seizure of political power by the workers, at least the consolidation of social democracy to "pump" capitalist profits to fund public services, education, unemployment, health care and pensions. In the immediate future, this aim can hold some validity, but we know at the same time, wanting to stay "in" capitalism but by pumping resources, you end up wanting to stay "inside". However, under the founder of socialism was well pumped up the resources of capitalism can do without him - and that's exactly what the transition from capitalism to the green post-capitalism would try to do. The world

current union knows maybe not sufficiently transition initiatives non-salary and non-capitalist that already exist. (See especially the book Nowtopia Chris Carlsson, as I mentioned in a previous article which claims to offer "a new labor policy.") Can easily initiate it by placing more attentive movements of ordinary citizens, notament within the growth target. In contrast, "people in transition" does not have a sufficient strategic leverage in the business community and state capitalist classic, and do not look quite active these levers so sometimes they live in isolation, without seeing that Most workers does not even know the alternative post-capitalist most promising. This is where unions can play an irreplaceable role in relays and even active support, the threat of social chaos if the post-capitalist transition would be set aside, even opposed, by our economic and political leaders .

Why not work urgently for a strategic rapprochement between the union and that "citizens in transition", so as to prevent the second expansion of the transition moves to the door and that our bosses and our Politicians do we lock in the first? Both unions and citizen movements would gain by being forced to change their ways of seeing and doing things. If the transition post-capitalist must have a chance, it is certainly in this renewed alliance between unions and public policy basis our greatest hope.

Increased Slimy Cm 7 Dpo

Unrealistic? The Alderman

One commentator yesterday tabled the idea: "In the short term, the local level seems to the least complicated to undertake the regional, but then to claim to 'my' mayor creation ex nihilo an Alderman of the transition ... it seems steep. Should we not consider a transitional step, with establishment of local structures of participatory democracy on the theme of transition? "He echoed, in more positive perhaps, another comment that said, essentially, that a lot of local politicians, and notament of mayors in place for decades, would certainly Acuna intention to change "their old habits." Implicitly, there is the thorny issue of realism to the idea of transition - transition of environmental and energy share (in terms of movement Cities and Communities in Transition ), economic transition on the other hand with the establishment of an economic alternative: cooperatives, self-managed enterprises, social economy-oriented "radical" possibilities of self-food production (especially vegetable) in the neighborhoods, local farming, etc.. These ideas are beautiful in the eyes of a lot of people ... but what do they realistic when you see the political and economic presence?

Certainly, one of the main slogans of May 68 was: "Be realistic, demand the impossible." It is a well-known paradox of activism as being regularly deal with actors (including political, economic as well, including among unions and citizens) who reject as not a particular mutation also felt as inevitable. Psychologists speak of "resistance to change", but be careful because this argument can often be used against progressives: environmentalists and trade unionists are sometimes accused of resisting change by politicians or employers who wish to "change the things "... to have more leeway in collecting profits and / or electoral votes. Resisting change is not in itself a good or a bad thing: it depends on the change in question. First, is it desirable and why? Second, even desirable, is it feasible? And here it is clear that in many cases, those who decree that a mutation is "impossible" are also those who have the greatest financial and political resources to carry it out. We may then suspect that it is their personal interests or interests of that group are jeopardized, and the argument of the "impossibility" is an excuse not to say simply: "This change, I do not want to because I'll lose money, prestige, etc.. "

As part of the ecological and economic transition, there are those who think it is not desirable and those who think it is not feasible. Ecologically, and including the issue of energy savings related to climate issues, there are few actors who still dare to said that the deployment is not desirable. The mass conversion of industrial financiers and even the green capitalism shows that new market niches were nosed, where you can make the money grow sheltered from environmental insults. (See especially the recent book by Dominique Nora, The pioneers of green gold , Grasset, 2009.) Since the "greening" can take place within the capitalist logic, it is thus seen as desirable ... However, in terms of economic transition towards sustainable production and consumption post-capitalist - democratic, participatory, "simplicitaires" - things are much less pink (or green) that hold on all sides because what is questioned is the logic of the valuation of economic and financial capital on the basis of wage labor, with the support of benevolent government. That whole "social democracy" capitalist who tremble on its foundations in the economic transition, and the key players do not want it spontaneously: the bosses of course, but also trade unions and politicians.

Our mayor and other aldermen are at the highest Local caught in the toils of the net. They do not see how they could reverse their little corner a trend that is supported by virtually all policy decisions at regional, federal, European and global levels. Hence the conviction, for lots of them, the very idea of transition is unrealistic, impossible to implement. (I do not even speak, of course, elected officials whom I allude commentators, who seem to view their political mandate as a source of income and personal with virtually no connection with any reflection on the interest general or on the major changes world.) Hence the idea that - in fact - our elected officials to the most local level need to be taken by the hand and reassured by their potential voters. It's good citizen participatory structures "illegal" that we first need - illegal in the sense that we have put in place without the express permission of our elected officials, with the consequence that our deliberations and inquiries at communal (for pushing forward, creating a Alderman of the transition) will immediately a purely advisory , as they say in the political jargon "democratic".

The trick is knowing how our consultative citizen initiatives will gain enough weight for one day or another, the force of law. But that is the lot of any shares not institutionalized: it is to wear in the belief that the mutations for which advocates are pressing, so desirable - so one day or another possible. In any case, the conviction that carries people like Rob Hopkins the UK, which is the "founding father" of the Transition Towns movement . In terms of economic transition, which (I just go up) is much more threatening the vested interests in our society probably be there a new alliance between the citizens of municipalities and unions. In any case, the conviction that defending Chris Carlsson United States, the movement's founder Nowtopia . Both for Hopkins in the energy field, for Carlsson in the field of labor and the struggle against the wage system is to citizens, without much help from the elected government, to make the impossible possible - in hope that at some point these elected officials themselves can not do, abandoning their allegiance to the often chilly dominant economic powers.

Easy to say, less easy to do. But is it for all ... unrealistic?

Implantation Day Before Period

the transition?

The first comments I received about my text show that the groundswell of citizen is indeed running. Certainly, everyone does not agree on everything, but it is at the interface between political institutions "classic" (cabinet ministers, parliaments) and the new movements and groups that citizens are the issues more urgent.

The political class does not seem to really believe the opportunity to accompany a transition like the one depicted in my text. Can you blame him? Yes and no.

No, because the numbers are there: electorally speaking, "citizens in transition" remain quite small - even marginal, in the perception of a lot of decision makers. And it's not just a matter of party politics: if one really believes that the percentage of voters for a moment x a certain project is good measure of the social relevance of this project, is clear that "democracy" (as conceived by those who think this way) does not support the transitional dynamics. Not yet, at least, say the more nuanced ... Still, the "short-termism" that strike our political decision making problem. If a minority (digital) of citizens in policy sends a strong signal, why ignore them? Response from some "Democrats" because any minority is a priori suspicious . It is true that being a minority does immediately decked by an undeniable dignity, if that were the case, although the movement should be humanely nauseating listening to the government.

The issue is not quantitative, it is qualitative. "Citizens in transition" are people who for various reasons, have chosen to devote considerable time and energy to actively seek alternative lifestyle. They are therefore, in some Thus, an "action research team" permanent, in which the policy can - if desired - to draw knowledge and analysis. Part of the continuing education (this institution so highly valued in our country, and it is important at all costs to preserve and even strengthen) is already over, with the public, initiatives transition. I refer specifically to two organizations that I know and rubs: the Friends of the Earth and the association Barricade. There are certainly lots of others. They make themselves known on this blog or elsewhere, so we fédérions maximum forces Wanted! Where the policy is wrong, is not to understand (but the horizon of a 5-year maximum term, what else?) That those citizens, as few as they are, are an invaluable resource. Acquired their lives, often obtained through difficult events and failures exceeded, can multiply with massive force. And their numbers are growing all the same in our latitudes!

As such, a previous commentator on this blog made the following remark: it is bitter but deserves our deep reflection: "Is there (...) much to hope for the emergence of such departments and other aid to experimentation? I am among those who, perhaps wrongly, do not expect much from politics. I can not help thinking that such proposals, by their radical and necessary budget requirements contained therein, can only remain a dead letter. (...) How to promote these alternatives without state aid? How to make them possible without waiting for either a penny or one hectare in any jurisdiction? Are they alone? Will he go in search of great patrons, Robert Owen of the 21st century? Deeper still, it should not be missed and that the pending public support paralyzes seeking private solutions .(...) If there is something to wait and hope it will come from citizens and their grouping in associations. If there is a question as how to unleash their creative power, their action without waiting for state assistance. Even in an advanced democracy, it is foolish to expect a political-economic system to provide himself with his opponent means to contest it in depth. "What is suggested here, which seems fair enough is that citizen action transition must not necessarily expect support from the makers of "short-termist" enrolled in a logic of co-option vis-à-vis the dominant players in the system. If there is a movement "transitioned" emerging, it may to a certain point forward without public support, by tinkering with solutions to help patrons suddenly converted to his cause or by using internal resources to the movement - - after all, a significant fringe of "citizens in transition" has spent his life working as an employee or independent contractor before embarking on this adventure alternative.

But this autonomy is possible only to a certain extent. One of the bottlenecks, as I stated in my text, is the non-availability of land and / or premises for the start of actvities socioeconomic alternatives. Locally, therefore, political support is essential in order to escape the logic of the market a series of key resources without which the transition will be very difficult to grow. Another commentator of my text I emailed this idea extremely relevant: "If I fully support the idea of a 'Ministry of Transition' I remain, as you pointed out yourself, confident that intermediate steps / preliminary at municipal level are essential and probably necessary in a approach 'bottom to top' as closest alternative initiatives. They probably precede any possibility of creating a ministry he was only regional. Could we therefore also introduce the proposal of Alderman of the transition? "

is very fair! The idea of a Ministry (regional or even federal) had germinated in my mind as a challenge to launch the political class as a whole. Ultimately, I think as this commentator that the existence of a collective body that can coordinate multiple local initiatives will inévtiable - hence the department. But in the short term, yes, let's start by a coupling of "citizens in transition" and most local elected officials, the most visible and questions immediatly: we would in each municipality an alderman of economic transition . This would also Alderman, subsequently, the ideal single point that I advocate in my track No. 3 (paragraph 3.15 of my text).

A simple idea, then: we take our pen or keyboard, and send our mayor the address of this blog, or text that is discussed, or any other form of inquiry that can bring out this application an Alderman of the economic transition that would explicitly the tracks I suggested in my paragraphs 3.15 to 3.18.

What do you think?