Where Can I Buy Stranne Lamp Light Bulbs

Post-capitalism (1): What planning?

the heart of the transition to post-capitalism - in the heart of the disconnection against capitalism - there must be (let's not mince words) a further report to the planning. If that word scares you, it immediately evokes the Soviet bloc and Bolshevism, it shows how much you are brainwashed by the surrounding debate. But that's normal: a half-century "reactionary rhetoric" (to quote the economist Albert Hirschman American) has convinced even the left-wing circles that oppose capitalism and planning. In fact, they interpenetrate: the logic of capitalism is already in itself a logical planning. Understanding this, it opens a vast intellectual horizons of social progress because we then realized that the real debate is not between "capitalism" and "interventionism" but between on the one hand, planning undemocratic (where capitalism and Bolshevism rub) and on the other hand, democratic planning.

Capitalism, therefore, is a logical planning undemocratic. Unacceptable!, Neoliberals argue that monopolized the word "liberal" as if they could make their mark ... Ineligible, because capitalism is a market economy and the market economy is a central element of democracy! Surely two lies that need wring the neck.

First, there are non-capitalist market economies, we can also call "economies with markets" (in the words of Thierry Verhelst): even the supposedly more primitive societies contain sites of exchange between equivalents, based on a social division of labor, with or without the intermediary of a currency. Barter, LETS, the "melting coins" that are experienced in some alternative economic communities - all this is the economy (or with) market (s). Those who want to confuse the market economy and capitalism are those who find clear (most often without even having thought) that the land, money and labor are commodities that can result in market transactions. "Land market, capital market, capital market, labor market" when you encounter these terms, you are not simply dealing with someone who defends the idea of market economy, you face someone who adheres to a capitalist economy market. It is a very special market economy in which it is believed, for the purpose of profit-maximizing capital (market financial, capital market), both the land (land market) that human labor (labor market) must be the subject of market transactions. Capitalism is what some call a market economy private enterprise: it is a special way to use the logic of the market to serve the interests of capital owners. Certainly, they will then perhaps the interests of "workers" and "consumers" - but that does not mean at all that the only way to serve our interests as workers or consumers or to organize our economy mode capitalist. Capitalism is not "the" model of market economy.

It follows naturally that there may be non-capitalist democracies, capitalism is by no means a necessity of democracy - even if one accepts that the market economy is, in turn, a necessity of democracy. But even this, is this the case? Not at all. Read for example the work of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel (I wrote about in one of the boxes in my note "Transition ecological and economic transition") on participatory economics or "participativa" - in English: Participatory Economy or "ParEcon" (See especially their website). Both authors have, for over thirty years, developed a coherent model of an economy without markets, where production decisions, consumption and allocation of resources and work effort would be taken democratically in a series of citizen committees at multiple levels of power. It is therefore a model of democratic planning "from below" without any centralized state, and without mechanisms of market competition or sale and resale of human labor, and also without any employer or managerial hierarchy within production entities. (Please, do not raise your eyes to heaven, do not yell at the ridiculous utopia before making the effort to read and study quietly the work in question. I am currently with a group of fifteen students at the Catholic University of Leuven, Master of Economics. The discussions between us are lively and full of healthy controversy, but a wealth encouraging for democratic deliberation.)

What these works on show democratic participatory planning, even beyond the flaws and imperfections inherent in any construction of alternatives is that models of democracy fully non-market exist, they are logically consistent and can be desirable depending on the assumptions that one makes about the nature of democracy and also about human nature. The market economy is not a necessary element of any democracy. Moreover, Albert and Hahnel are radically liberal. These are, as they say in the jargon, "left-libertarians," or even "anarcho-syndicalist" - where the word "union" does not include partners, opponents of the FEB and all but UWE groups for citizens to deliberate on economic priorities, and where the word "anarchy" does not refer to bombing TGV routes but the demand for a radically new governance "from below" ( bottom-up), especially in the worlds of work and production.

Ah yes, the squeak neoliberal (or conquered the socialist market economy, or the environmentalist sentenced to "social democracy Green), but you've just used the word that kills planning. We are democrats and we therefore oppose any planning - we are in favor of individual freedom, personal initiative, self-regulation, not statism and authoritarianism. Eternal old song ... And how neoliberal and clones from the center-left they perform their hocus-pocus ideological? Specifically by continuing to confuse capitalism and market economy, and making us believe that capitalism is "the" documentation of the market economy, is the opposite of "planning". Nothing is more incorrect.

the 1950s, the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith showed that American capitalism, renowned for its supposed free enterprise, with the USSR was the system most world leaders, including infiltrated by the "military industrial complex" which served as his right arm the government to allocate resources to the private sector public considered appropriate. The Bush era (2001-2009) has not denied this prophecy, quite the contrary - even within an administration that proclaimed itself constantly as a promoter of "free enterprise". In their remarkable new book on neo-liberalism, entitled New because of the world, Christian and Pierre Laval Dardot showed (on the basis, inter alia, the approach of "governmentality" in Michel Foucault) that the confusion between capitalism and market economy, carefully fostered by neoliberal think tanks (such as at home, Institut Jean Gol, ITIN, or McKinsey Institute Hayek), hides a disturbing reality: capitalism has nothing to do with promoting freedom and autonomy, or even nothing to do with "market", but everything to do with the appointment in the private sector in public decision logic. In view of what? Planning for a "rational" economic activities and political decisions to create the conditions for profit maximization of economic and financial capital. We need a very powerful to create such conditions. Neoliberalism, which is the promotion of capitalism as mechanism for collective planning, is a successful form of statism.

Why do they want to promote neoliberal capitalism as a mechanism for planning? Because they do not believe that democracy - in any case, participatory democracy that is less easy to define and to co-opt that representative democracy - the right tool for governance. What then is the right tool, in their eyes? The "free market" as they say in chorus? No way! The free market capitalist, yes - but it means above all that the class of "supervisors" (managers and policy makers) should be co-opted into a logical That will make him take the "good" decisions - those that allow shareholders to have a play area as wide as possible to multiply and increase itself. And why this veneration of capital? Because the neoliberal is absolutely convinced that only the holder of economic and financial capital (either an individual or a pension fund) has the "incentives" that will lead it to invest its capital in "good" places - for contribute to a common good that defines not anymore, or that best defines conveniently vague ideas by: creating growth, provide jobs, ensure the competitiveness of our businesses, ... Moreover, these goals are often lies in front (because growth often does not create jobs, and capital in search of competitiveness is not at all interested in the job), they are too vague because not subject to democratic deliberation of citizens: for growth, for what and for whom? Jobs, yes, but where and under what conditions? Competitiveness at the expense of who and what public choice in health, education, etc..? No need for such discussions, we say our planners capitalists: let capital move, ask the state to create the legal and regulatory of mobility (with, why not a little social ecology and for good measure), and we will automatically produce "good" results. Worse, corporate democracy undermines the efficient allocation of capital, and democracy in general - when given "too much" space - slows or prevents the efficient reallocation to occur.

The paradox, of course, is that the glorification of free enterprise and free markets - on a background of capitalism, insist upon it - is actually an apology for scheduling a specific type. Allergy entrepreneurs to participatory democracy watch they want central planning, even authoritarian, internally. And advocating neoliberal representative democracy shows that it is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a target easily manipulated, so cooptable again in a process of central planning - but apparently not planning authoritarian, since ' just hold out the "risks" of a state too "interventionist" policies for self-censor ... and implement the "right" intervention without consulting the citizens too.

While the picture I painted here is perhaps a bit too dark. There are companies where experiments democratic place, and where planning is replaced capitalist (often only partially) through a democratic planning. And there are politicians who wish to retrieve a latitude of choice in the "market pressure". But overall in terms of overall logic , it seems obvious that capitalism is now seen by many "decision makers" (that is to say, business leaders and members government) and by many economists as a tool for planning effective collective. The problem is that - as I tried to show schematically - It is an undemocratic tool. The market only records the requests and expectations of those who can afford to buy one euro, one vote, and capitalism gives priority to an even less democratic principle: a European capital, one vote. If you still have the illusion that the dilution of capital on equity markets provides a "shareholder democracy", I suggest you read the powerful works of the French economist Frederic Lordon .

What is at issue, this is not the principle of planning! For even the capitalism we have seen, is a logical planning highlighted as "rational" by economists, policy makers and economic decision makers. No, what is at stake is the choice of a planning method that is democratic: not centralized, not related to the most influential actors of capitalism, not simply rooted in a representative democracy. We need to think thoroughly and patiently to democratic participatory planning methods, example by following and extending creatively tracks Albert and Hahnel which I briefly above (but not sacrosanct and may be modified, rejected, replaced by others, etc..). That, to me, one of the key issues of post-capitalism.

********************

PS. One commentator tells me that my articles are too long. I apologize. I try to be shorter in the future, if possible - but argue against the prevailing dogmas often requires even more space and nuance than defend ... Thank you anyway to all those who, despite the length of posts, taking the time to read and internalize. Cheers critical citizenship!

St.dalfour Cream In Dubai

No bullying if you please!

On Friday morning, the weekly Le Vif / L'Express (No. 3063, 19-25 March 2010) relayed on page 12 an excerpt from my blog. This is the passage (relatively short) where I mention my walkabout the cabinet of Jean-Marc Nollet, during a "putting green" where I had (in part at my own request, but following a oldest invitation of the Minister himself in November 2009) presented an outline of my idea of economic transition with double trigger. Very general impressions of this visit, which I recounted in my March 12 entry below, obviously did not please Mr. Noll, who saw fit to call me on my mobile phone this morning about 8:15 to put it dryly his "astonishment".

I leave the readers of this blog judges about whether such intervention telephone "customized" of an elected political (who is also exercising the office of Minister of Scientific Research) from a research scientist whether or not subject to interference or intimidation. Personally, I think it raises real questions. Democracy does she need not critical intellectuals and freedom of expression? If my ideas are problematic in this or that party, what more natural than to debate it publicly, even if only through websites interposed? In its socio-economic options Ecolo is torn between a Leftist and a Liberal leaning electorate, this is for me part of the object of my scientific research - namely the severe restrictions that the economic logic of capitalism requires de facto decision-makers policies have to operate from day to day, in the short term. Capitalism is not very compatible with the radical, and (perhaps reluctantly in some cases) a lot of elected officials and cabinet members Ecolo illustrate this inconsistency. It is part of my academic freedom of being able to use these situations to reveal my work which is to raise awareness among citizens about the invisible barriers erected by the radical democratic economic system that is "neutral" or "amoral".

Note that I circulated on 12 February was entirely public and in no way constituted an internal or confidential. She has been exposed and debated at a party though informal, but at no time where confidentiality or secrecy was requested not me. That does not mean that I was going to disclose everything and anything! When I wrote in my entry from March 12 that I did not want to "betray the confidentiality of discussions, "I meant that, by simple correction and scientific honesty, I do not see the benefit of adding or stigmatize anyone personally - as, indeed, my scientific work is not to accuse people, but to analyze and make intelligible to the citizens we are all, all of which pose logical question.

I made reference to the Minister Nollet because it is his firm (indeed extremely wide and diverse) that the meeting took place. I did not reveal ad hominem of his remarks with him, nor about other persons involved. I do not fed any judgmental towards individuals who have spoken. I am just as "prisoner" in the short term, logic and the capitalist way of life they are. In the short term we all hostages of this logic. Should we all ignore the embarrassment of a political party that is struggling to locate (like the others, I insist, but on the basis of a different philosophy) between collaboration with existing strengths and opening new horizons? I do not think. And that's why I recounted in this brief passage of my blog, but no personal hostility without diluting the stakes, the lessons and personal perceptions I learned from this encounter friendly and frank. (You can not invite both an intellectual, asking him to explain his ideas and direct him, then, for GSM or otherwise, does not raise questions about what he has seen and heard clearly when his ideas were discussed.)

That a journalist has been extracted from my blog 23 lines (within an entry that actually 135), this may seem unfortunate to some, but it's not my responsibility. Citizens, and M. Noll himself, so just read the articles in my blog throughout their length and in all their nuances, so as not to stick to a dispatch a little "shock" in a week. Because I maintain: where this reporter was absolutely right, it is isolated in my blog a real problem, we can not in any way stifle games under influence or Intimidation: The Progressive-oriented parties are now under immense pressure and their internal tensions, inconsistencies and even their speech, reflect a true structural difficulty that citizens should not remain ignorant. We obviously can not exonerate the PS or the HRC to these inconsistencies - but ECOLO hitherto been the refuge of so many progressive and alternative that the problem arises with particular acuteness.

We are very fortunate in our democracies, to have independent scientific research institutions such as universities or FNRS, who can diagnose such problems, analyze and conceptualize them, and try to build the concepts and ideas that will overcome the problems. It would be regrettable that installs a climate where phone calls conveniently placed attempt to influence or intimidate researchers when they venture onto land controversy. As a scientist engaged, I wish ardently progressive political forces that can coordinate the pursuit of a radical alternative, the part of citizens tired and weakened by the economic mechanisms in place. Current issues are so serious and urgent need for a new framework of thinking is so hot, that the maneuvers of power and influence of this or that minister or this or that party should not interest anyone - especially not citizens who wonder whether it is still worthwhile to vote.

bet that many issues and fascinating (no less than urgent) of economic transition will continue to be debated freely, including politicians with whom we much needed to lead and guide our communities. Those interested in more ideas than the games of influence can refer immediately to the previous entry in this blog, dating from yesterday evening in which I attempted to clarify my objections against "Ten proposals" Ecolo-Groen.

Strongest Type Of Wood

ECOLO: A "bad process"?

Following my article of March 12 titled "Ecolo, or the mountain that gave birth to a mouse", friends environmentalists have criticized me vehemently to make them a very bad case. Obviously I did not want to hurt people, nor to question their commitment or sow doubts about their sincerity individual. That's a overall logic is that when involves compromises, and even blackmail, which leads the current fiscal year of power in a capitalist social democracy.

The views expressed by each other in a cabinet are not so strongly influenced by beliefs (even if some of the highlight, of course) by reasonable accommodation with reality very few receptive - I agree easily - with radical ideas and desires of profound change. Exercise the power is not easy, especially in coalitions as "colorful" (a euphemism for "absurd") than under current federal, Walloon and French Community. This, I said in my article, and I repeat here. But is it so far justified to speak of a "bad process"?

After all, without wishing to give lessons too (but I'm committed researcher also exposed daily to derogatory judgments of colleagues - I know a little of what I mean), do politics is to affirm the ideals then seek to implement to the extent of what is really possible. These two words - "ideals" and "real" - are crucial. Realism is obviously not to have no ideals, as is the case in a good part of the PS speaking of good old school and ideals, there are at Ecolo. That is not the issue. Just browse the latest works of Jean-Michel Javaux , Bernard Wesphael or Jean-Marc Nollet , or seeing what themes working on some members of Etopia . The ideal, and even rather radical ideal, is at the heart of political ecology since its inception and especially since the heyday of Ivan Illich and Andre Gorz.

But then, why the hell is there so little radical in "Ten Proposals" released by the Green Party on March 11? The question that environmentalists, when they were in opposition, rightly addressed to the PS and CDH (I do not even speak here of the MR, which truly is offscreen in this whole discussion of progressivism) - this same question, should not they be urgently ask it now they are themselves in power? Why now drowning under a post-capitalist party firmly on the left (at least at the time of its creation) in truisms like "redeployment of our green economy "(p. 1) or" strict control measures "for" Meet the challenges of fighting against unfettered capitalism "(p. 2)? [I refer here, and now, the pages of the document " Ten Proposals ".]

For we must clearly: if" our "economy to be greened, it is capitalism's it is - framed by a social democracy, of course, but still. And one wonders what "regulation" may be in a system where one does not question, radically, the dependence of localities with respect to global investors or dependency of workers in respect of shareholders and / or contractors whose only concern is the ultimate maximum return on their capital. Ecolo would apparently re-"restrain" capitalism (as it says "unbridled") - but what "reforms in the economic and financial system" (p. 2) can it be, if it does not state clearly and unequivocally the need for disconnection against capitalism and way to force states and communities to compete? The "series of concrete proposals" (p. 2) involving "radical reforms" of the capitalism appears particularly on pages 98 to 105 of the book The Green Deal Jean-Marc Nollet. It includes measures of re-regulation of financial and banking sectors; it may be useful and certainly reasonable, but not the transition to double relaxation we seek here. Regulated capitalism, it is still capitalism, especially when considered irreversible globalization sharply limit, de facto , the latitudes of regulation ...

When do we say finally that, since its emergence centuries ago, capitalism has never and will never have to worry employment nor democracy, and that he puts local communities in an unsustainable dependence with respect to "financial resources" they must beg, in a globalized context, by selling off cheaply their independence and sovereignty? Regulate capitalism - but it still wants to believe that? No, it must de-con-nec-ter , otherwise we will never catch our breath because of the pace it imposes on us ... That is what is meant by (a little more highbrow, certainly) "post-capitalism".

citizens movements - such as Cities and Communities in Transition or Objectors Growth (who is stuck again and again, especially in Ecolo, the absurd and inaccurate label of "decay") - have the freedom to make clear the basic economic truths. They include women and men who do not necessarily want to send a particular party in power, or depend on any particular investor to survive, but who simply want to be supported publicly in the construction of all new production methods to consume. They do not care which party claims to embody these ideals post-capitalist - at municipal level, these citizens will vote for the PS, for ECOLO or the HRC provided that the commitments of local elected representatives of these parties they seem radical enough and sufficiently credible. This is where the word "really" that I mentioned above. Argue that one is in coalition and, therefore, the ideal that one door can not materialize - so we prefer the outset of modest proposals and "realistic" - c is the usual reflex of political compromise. Result: we present the moment a strange mix between a rhetoric of radicalism (which weaken a little hunting unemployed passes for humanism avant-garde) and a policy of softening prior ideals .

Thus, Ecolo claims to want "to facilitate the transition to a greener economy, towards a friendly environment" (p. 3). Who, one wonders, does not it? And why "facilitate" and not "impose emergency in ways radically new? The document indicates that it must "resolve the dilemmas posed by the growth" (p. 3) - but, one wonders, really wants strengthen, or make insoluble , the dilemmas of growth? Although the MR has any interest in solving the dilemmas of growth - whether he thinks there are, and certainly because he thinks he is informed by competent economists who understand capitalism - in order to continue implementation of an ideology of economic growth at any cost . Of course, one can agree with ECOLO it is time "to take into account in developing the social policy, inequality, health, education, welfare, ecological footprint by not focusing more exclusively on growth "(p. 4) - but the Liberals will counter with irony that they either do not focus" only "about growth! They simply have to acknowledge that realism, the logic of capitalism , health, education and Abatement (they take them too) that can through revenue growth and production and thus the attraction to Belgium, Brussels and Wallonia Chinese investors, German, Indian, Japanese, English, Brazilian, etc.. in search of profit in the short term without any regard for "our" socio-cultural fabric.

Do not focus only on growth, it must find other ways of creating value - and indeed ECOLO proposes to encourage the development of alternative indicators to GDP (Proposal No. 2) . but in what context, in what context these indicators are expected to be "Alternative"? The answer, alas, is disappointing for those of us who aspire to a disconnect with regard to capitalism. Indeed, in another proposal (No. 3), the document indicates that it is to encourage monitoring and dashboards where environmental "initiatives might arise generating profits for both the environment for businesses. Besides the occupation of new niches bearing and compression of certain costs [sic ], the implementation of environmental policies [emphasis in italics] indeed allow companies to meet increasing demands shareholders, investors, contractors, public authorities and associations for environmental management "(p. 5). New indicators may be an excellent idea in itself, but that we do not make too many illusions in terms of radicalism: they will actually be implemented by ECOLO within a social-democratic capitalist logic (with "shareholders", the "investors" and "government public "who put their" requirements ", the" cost containment ") that apparently does not think to question. Lesson immediate environmentalists government will indeed have to resign "Focus solely on growth" ... because the system in which they are registered they are given little choice.

In the framework of public procurement (Proposal No. 8), which are indeed an important lever for government action, it is well to encourage the purchase of "products and services environmentally and workers' rights "(p. 10). This makes sense and is reasonable. But why be guided by the strange principle that wants the government "must take the lead" (p. 10 and p. 11) - a principle that has obviously makes sense in a capitalist economy where tries, somehow, to "regulate" private actors who have an interest in following the "example" for other private actors, that is to say their competitors in the race for profitable niches? In a post-capitalist economy citizen, the idea that the state must set an example seem strange to people who, themselves, would set an example especially to their political leaders by logging out of capitalism and its "constraints". To whom, about what "example" should it be directed? We simply note said Ecolo, to "alternative, less polluting" and "buying more ethical" (p. 10) - under the "green clauses" which paragraph one above, were still "social and environmental clauses. The "social" tends to be quickly retracted; only remains environmental. But is this surprising? It is quite clear - as I indicated in my note "Transition ecological and economic transition," pp. 1-3 - that if the environmental clauses have gained plausibility for private actors of capitalism (the component bioenvironmental now seen as a source of profitability), social clauses have significantly less or no (c ' is the environmental component anthropologists saw as an obstacle to the profitability of capital). It feels longer bothered to impose too long even in a programmatic text like this which is meant a formulation of an ideal to be pursued ...

remains the stronghold - or should we say here's alibi - the social economy (proposal No. 10). I have already proposed some elements of analysis in my message of 12 March. However, insofar ECOLO even claims to be promoting a radical alternative preferring "Grand Soir (...) dozens of mornings, made from the combination of local actions and global citizenship and policy" (Noll, Green Deal , p. 152), he must try to clarify the problem. How big are supposed to have these "actions"? I quote again one of the key passages: "The social economy organizations and solidarity often emerge in response to social demands or economic market in which and / or public action can not respond adequately or quickly" ( p. 10). It is said that public buildings will be insulated (proposal No. 9) but at the same time, capitalism and human waste little or no recorded will only be strengthened through a third sector that will kindly fill gaps increasing. Let us make the social economy in 20 years, what has become roughly unions today - a palliative internal system, increasingly co-opted but at the same time, discredited by the established players in the name of "competitiveness" and "flexibility"? Is this what Ivan Illich and Andre Gorz awaited political ecology? It seems not.

This article is particularly long, I apologize. Because I wanted to propose a detailed discussion of the reasons I write what I wrote a week ago. I do not spit in the soup, and I do not think the owner of "transition." But I think those who, in Ecolo, find that I make them a "bad process" make me a bad case. Nothing in these "Ten proposals," does allow citizens to see how a party in which some say they are radical, even anti-capitalist, it will take to fight capitalism with proposals that take capitalism as a given starting , never questioned. I repeat what I wrote March 12: might be the secret hope of environmentalists is Belgian he dint of "green" private capitalism by state rules they will one day, as if by surprise, triggering the second expansion of the post-capitalist economic transition. But I think they could convince us that they were more state to the citizens who elected them, blackmail real (employment, relocation, re-election) which they are subjected against their will by the system, as the elect of other parties elsewhere. They could then encourage a greater awareness with real economic transition disconnection post-capitalist. Pretend they were going to revolutionize things annoying or harassing the dominant players in this globalized capitalist logic, while anchoring itself in this logic to make proposals, seems too short - and is not partly what makes some people abstainers?

A Horse Is A Horse Farm Lessons

Return of Europ'Apéro

Europ’Apéro - A cool aperitif for young Europeans

Organized by the Point Information Jeunesse and the Maison de l’Europe des Yvelines, the Europ’Apéro took place on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 in Chatou.

Both French and foreign young people living in Chatou and in Paris came and represented their country, in a relaxing and friendly atmosphere, sipping French wine and trying to speak as many languages as they could in one night.

Wandering around the café Le Catovien (in Front Of The RER station Chatou-Croissy), You Could Hear Français, French, German, Italian, English, Portuguese and more!

The WAS decorated coffee pour la STI opportunity and seen big success, The Event Will now take place more regularly. So note down-the date of The Next Europ'Apéro on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 at 7pm at Café "The Catovien. You can not miss this great event!

Europ'Apéro - A very cool drink for young Europeans

Organised by the Youth Information Centre and the Maison de l'Europe des Yvelines, the Europ'Apéro held Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at Chatou.

In a relaxed atmosphere, young French and foreigners living in Chatou and Paris found themselves a drink to represent their countries and speak all the languages they know (or not!)

Au café The Catovien (opposite the station Chatou-Croissy on the RER A), spoke English, French, German, Italian, English, Portuguese and more! Moreover, the coffee was decorated for the occasion!

Given the strong success, we will not stop there way. Note thus-and-now already in your diaries that the next Europ'Apéro will take place Tuesday, May 4 at 19h at the Café "The Catovien. Not to be missed!

Ceramic Vs Diamond Sharpener

The first alderman of the Economic Transition!

This is great news: the margins of major policy statements and political maneuvering, a courageous man just decide to take a big step: Mr. Gregor Chapel, alderman of Labour in the Brussels commune of Forest (50,000 inhabitants), announced this morning on its website he will now be known as the Alderman of Labor and Economic Transition (Employment, Economic Transition, Commerce, Economics and Social Revitalization of neighborhoods). Mr. Chapel does not seem to want to stay in the ads as a cosmetic, this morning also, published in La Libre Belgium a position very clear for public support measures for the relocation economic and social economy truly visionary, falling clearly in the perspective of Cities and Communities in Transition .

course, like all elected, he will have to show that this initiative - courageous, repeat, and extremely encouraging for all citizens movements - really rooted in an alternative project and it will indeed be included in the triangle "social economy, lifelong learning, civic movements", rather than being just another resume in hand or confiscation policy spaces overrun citizen. But do not spoil our fun and welcome the local elected his "joyous entry" into a new trend of politicians genuinely transitioned , which is to date the first member and it opens with force!

Ah yes, in fact, Gregor PS Chapel is an elected, not elected Ecolo ... But this is probably not the most important. For those of us who aspire to a "utopia of the present", a Nowtopia paraphrase Chris Carlsson, the most important thing is that progressive politicians, of whatever kind (as they are not manipulated by a party apparatus or by economic interests), are launching strong signals and put into action as much as the current permits.

Fleetwood Wilderness 30n Specs

ECOLO, or the mountain that gave birth to a mouse

Dear readers of this blog, you probably heard about the announcement by Ecolo-Groen! Of "Ten propositions for the successful transition of our green economy and promoting employment. If not, you will probably hear some in the media in the coming days. The text of the proposals downloaded from the website Green Party.

What is striking, of course, is the presence of the word "transition" in the title of this appeal. This word is certainly not a registered trademark and everyone is free to use as it sees fit. But I want to urge visitors to this blog (which is called TRANSITIONS) that qu'ECOLO use made of the word has almost nothing to do with the one we explore here . This is important because all the apparatus of political parties have the annoying tendency to recover too quickly living concepts circulating in civil society, peoples' movements for devitalized by turning them into propaganda tools instantly. Not that I think qu'ECOLO, unable per se, to advocate the transition as we call him our best wishes here - but it is very certainly not with the call latter, despite its grandiose terminology, this authentic transition may be initiated.

I explained my note "Transition ecological and economic transition" February 12, the day of creation of this blog, in an evening of informal discussion in the cabinet of Jean-Marc Nollet, Minister-key governments the Walloon Region and French Community of Belgium. Without betraying the confidentiality of discussions, I can still show that the transition double trigger I advocated in my paper was not very attractive for makers trained on the short term. (There was, however, especially where members of the Forward Studies Unit in the office of a minister in charge of scientific research also.) Capitalism me is do we understand, is essential not only short term but also as a central engine of our wealth creation, we must harness the discipline or even force him to target "green," but it does not exceed to a post-capitalist horizon.

short, out of green capitalism, no hello. Consequently, and contrary to what I hammered in my text, the second trigger (transition from capitalism to a green post-capitalism) remains a dead letter for Ecolo - even in the longer term, as some "bigwigs" at this meeting (not elected but veterans cabinettards) argued loudly, joining in that all the big employers in Belgium, France and Navarre, that self-management, participatory economics, democracy and corporate capitalism without capital-friendly fiscal had no future and does not reflect the "nature of man."

These options pro-capitalists are most clearly reflected in the first eight propositions of "transition" Ecolo. (The ninth is nice but obviously purely symbolic isolate public buildings will be there a sufficient signal for the powerful private economic actors, including Belgian, who contributed work to undermine long-term ideological to finally derail the summit in Copenhagen?) Ecological Transition, yes maybe We say MM. Nollet and Javaux - but economic transition, no. Perhaps the secret hope of environmentalists is Belgian he dint of "green" private capitalism by state rules they will one day, as by surprise, triggering the second expansion of the post-capitalist economic transition? I doubt in the light of my contacts within the party, but even if that hope was truly present in them, they should rely more heavily on the constellation of actors I mentioned in my message of March 4: citizens' movements (including Cities and Communities in Transition), continuing education and social economy.

Jean-Michel Javaux retort may be that I have not seen the proposal No. 10. Yes, yes, I saw her. It is a laggard, as an appendix to discrete perhaps feel good. The question is not whether or not to support the social economy - the answer is obviously yes, and even bosses capitalist with whom I had the opportunity to speak say they favor the emergence of third-sector. No, the real issue is the critical status that gives Social Economy: Is it fated to remain one of the three components of a "plural economy" governed by the partnership between the private and crushing State, or is it called a visionary and prophetic role: that of offering experiences post-capitalist life-size (but in context Social Democratic hostile capitalist) that are intended to be generalized into a new model? Of course it is, and not a "greening" of the capitalist social democracy, we mean here by a genuine transition.

Gold says the tenth proposal ECOLO? What are the assumptions? Read the beginning of the proposal: " organizations of social and solidarity economy often emerge in response to social demands which the market or economic and / or public action can not respond adequately or quickly. Faced with the The challenge of climate change, it is therefore not surprising to see emerge initiatives in the sector of social economy. They also play a pioneering role in relation to trades new, particularly in the areas of recovery, reuse or remediation. for a successful transition to ecological economics, we must also give the opportunity to undertake these different ways. "(p. 11) This vision is entirely conventional economic and social solidarity as support for the capitalist social democracy to meet the" market failures "(jargon: market failures). implied: the social economy is a stopgap adjuvant enable both sides to make other odd jobs as private companies are not willing to do them because they do not pay enough ... Under the guise of "ways to undertake different," we will eventually co-opted by the state enterprises and the private sector to complement the range of tasks to low-profit private, but high collective value, performing in a capitalist green where the State itself agrees to let the private big margins for action and funding. This is not bad, certainly, but not - I repeat not - the economic transition that we refer here to our wishes. There is no shadow of a post-capitalist horizon to open, not the slightest hint of a radically new society to build.

Can we blame ECOLO given birth to a mouse and after the idea of "transition" a mountain? If you've read my previous articles on this blog, you probably understand that it is pointless to throw stones at a ruling party that faces a strong private sector partners and with majority less than receptive to the radical alternatives. The rhetoric of the radical has become a tool of "com" in the daily politics of today. The apparatus of the parties know that a lot of people expect the big news, and then we sprinkle thundering ad: a "new social pact" to the PS, a "Planet Humanist" to the UNHRC, an "ecological transition" in Ecolo. (The MR, it is silent on all fronts, seeking perhaps even to translate its new "social doctrine" in visible acts. Perhaps, ultimately, a little less dishonest.)

I think really think that we are citizens, while speaking clearly in favor of either political party at election time, rather must turn to individual politicians in all progressive formations - - elected representatives who, one by one, take their courage in both hands and openly display their willingness to take players in economic transition, especially at local level. Entrenched privilege the movement and human-sized Cities and Communities in Transition (VCT). The idea for the Deputy Mayor of economic transition, which was proposed on this blog by some readers and I relayed imédiatement, absolutely must make his way. Leave with some healthy skepticism, large formations patricratiques announce their "proposals". They will be judged in time, when they have been implemented, if one day they are . The immediate rather support local elected officials in their personal transformation to the "existential activism." These elected braver than average, and more enterprising than their own party apparatus, accompany them and support them in their attempts to combine citizens' movements, continuing education and social economy in the development of a real alternative , that is to say a socioeconomic transition double trigger.

Town Name Quiz Cryptic

Photos Ahmadou during his EVS in Czech Republic

was during a day in a school located in Zibridice, Maria and I have conducted activities with children, creations, songs in French and English, etc.. Great day:)

With Maria and Sonia (middle), ex-volunteer in the same organization that I was back in the Czech Republic after 5 months in France. So we celebrated his arrival by singing and drinking.


Session basketball official in Nove Mesto, the children were excited and both very attentive to my advice, my project manager was very satisfied this first meeting, and others elsewhere)

Ohio Drivers License Creator

Europ'Apéro

Europ'Apéro

Wednesday, 10 March 2010

From 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.

@ Café “Le Catovien”, in front of the RER station Chatou-Croissy

organisé par le Point Information Jeunesse et la Maison de l’Europe des Yvelines

A cool aperitif for young Europeans :-) Come and represent your country and speak as many languages as you know!

Just wander around the tables, choose your language, sit down and speak… English, French, German, Italian, English, Portuguese and more!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/event.php?eid=277974550333&ref=mf


Europ'Apéro

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

From 19h to 22h

the cafe "The Catovien, opposite the station Chatou-Croissy (RER)

organized by the Youth Information Centre and the Maison de l'Europe des Yvelines
A very cool drink for young Europeans :-)

Come represent your country and speak any language you know!

Around the tables, choose your language, sit down and talk ... English, French, German, Italian, English, Portuguese and many other

http://www.facebook.com/home.php? # / event.php? eid = 277974550333 & ref = mf


Information:
Daphne MdEY: 01.39.52.36.21
Celine PIJ: 01.30.53.04.07

La Maison de l'Europe des Yvelines is on Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/home.php? # / Profile.php? Id = 100000733302237

Pain Foot Arch Figure Skating

Cultural Revolution?

I do not know if you had the opportunity to read the comments related to the two preceding articles. They are dense and extensive, and I thank their respective authors for taking the time to write such detailed reviews. It emerges from their comments a strange mixture of optimism and skepticism. We are all agreed on the urgent need for a transition that is not a face lift or a facelift, more or less covered with cosmetics. The ecological transition may actually be that if, in parallel - and at a depth where the majority of our policymakers are not aware of - an economic transition to post-capitalism.

On the bottom of this agreement, however, lies an all-out skepticism: we just frankly to see what actors are finally credit in the eyes of our reviewers ... The State? Certainly not, especially since (as one of you has just noticed) I myself rarely speaks of the state without adding the word "capitalist" just behind: we are indeed in a Social Democracy capitalist, with its legal and political support for capitalism, seen as "the" unique and irreplaceable engine of social progress. The Commons? Not! No mayor can do in place, if one believes the comments received, tearing at the political cowardice and management of his personal interests or patricratiques. Unions? Okay. Are not they, themselves, too "sold" to the logic with which we would like to break? Did not they eventually be co-opted within the capitalist social-democratic compromise, and they are not depository - into a "social dialogue" where they finally play second fiddle alongside bosses' creators value "and a state" redistributor "- a model of struggle increasingly outdated: Backup purchasing power, defense employees without much consideration of margins unemployed, acceptance of privileges for workers North against the South, etc..?

breathlessnessand ... Who will be the transition in the end? We guess obviously the answer, but worried at the same time: it will be "citizens" themselves. Understood: all those and all those of us who do not participate in social dialogue established, not in the commission of "social partners" who live daily in a system whose logic is managed by others. Citizens, therefore, but enrolled in a larger effort to recreate a new "hegemony" (Gramsci aptly term) that would de facto a cons -hegemony. Because the stakes - as we seem to agree on this - is a broad and deep cultural work. Or rather, because it Do not be afraid of words: a cultural revolution . Ah, here's another word busy, and that others before us (Herbert Marcuse and Theodore Roszak, for example, in the years 60-70) have tried to save the bloody rout Bolshevik-Maoist Khmer Rouge. In the current sociopolitical environment, what is a cultural revolution? And what kind of "new hegemony" would seek such a revolution today? It is my duty to be a tad disappointing, to grasp the real opportunity that exists here and now.

The distrust of politicians is quite legitimate in the current context, but they remained the only player in a possible "synthesis practice" referred to citizens expressed and experienced in the movement. Clearly, it is by politicians (at all levels of power) it will pass sooner or later. It is therefore crucial to question them relentlessly from the base, the media harassment, making them questioning motives if necessary (that's their job to manage them) to show them that we expect from them - as individuals and not just as scholars of electoral votes - a radicalism that they dare not put forward too. Certainly, it will not change because immediate the "Democratic machine" is (and is sometimes beneficial) to relax rather slow and thick into procedures, deadlines and going and coming. So, what are the movements citizens themselves who must réappoprier "making" of the culture. And here we are, so to speak "in cabbages" - at least in principle . For verily, as I already said in a previous article of this blog, our democracies, including Belgium, the blessed land of the gods associative, have a special pool that is the whole area of education Permanent . It is this sector which in fact is the heaviest social responsibility in the current situation: Irrigated (never enough, of course, but still irrigated) in public funds captured the private benefits, and capable (as opposed to private companies that make the "CSR" as a result of cosmetic surgery) of a real social responsibility), the continuing education sector should position itself as the emergency interface of choice between citizen movements and a few brave politicians who now rally to the cause transition. If you're in lifelong learning, ask yourself why you do emergency orient step towards the problems of transition, or at least how your "core business" (the environmental awareness in kindergarten, conferences for senior citizens, literacy of young immigrants, whatever) could be maximally articulated the challenges of ecological and economic transition.

As for the "production" of culture, here again we would not be starting from scratch. Another crucial area, that of the social economy , contains and is already a multitude of experiences and cultural achievements properly: new modes of organization, new behaviors, rooted in new principles of life and (let's not mince words!) new rationales, new and even spirituality. Alas, a lot of promoters of the social economy (whether in parties or as Ecolo in research universities) want to stay in a promotion too vague and perhaps too consensual (because politically harmless) of a "plural economy" where the third sector co-exist with the capitalist economy and the public sector, without giving themselves a goal of radical subversion of social compromises Democrats who now run out. Is not it time to see the social economy as a laboratory for alternative who intended to subvert the current socioeconomic order by generalizing? If you are in the social economy, ask yourself why emergency you do not participate in reflection on, and creating, lifestyles and thinking radically alternative, or at least how your "heart of activity "(helping youth, assistance to elderly, promoting sport in schools, whatever) could be linked more closely to the challenges of transition.

therefore movements citizens could use the intellectual resources and logistical challenge for lifelong learning policies, arguing the many cultural innovations emerging in the social economy. It would in any case come with a "cultural pattern" did everything to impose on players. Locate the emergence of a culture revitalized economic movements at the interface between citizens, lifelong learning and social economy is to maximize the chances that this emergence is truly innovative and ... Revolutionary! Nothing is certain or acquired, but these three sectors most precious of our democratic societies hone their interfaces and synergies, while claiming public funds financed (in spite of themselves) by the profits of private firms, the more courageous politicians (because there are all the same!) will feel to finally grow wings to take their courage in both hands and make their coming-out ! ... (Are we expecting in the wake, a new offensive against the employer education - and then he will probably stop being nice and sweet ...)

Surely those of you who want made answers, recipes change, cultural patterns prefabricated, ready-cooked alternatives and any architectural plans drawn - these will inevitably be disappointed by this "policy emergence. "No doubt they will pay, in desperation, or in a new dream of" Big Night "which would make the State the creator of the new culture, whether in the managerial ideology which would give McKinsey in the formulation of objectives of a company efficiently and effectively ... If we want to avoid both pitfalls and at the same time provide a credible form of "cultural revolution", the combination of players that I have suggested above above seems to me the only one that is both realistic and subversive.