As I suggested in my text "Transition ecological and economic transition", the most relevant to reconcile a radical democracy and economic renewal of the fabric would be a form of bio-regionalism . This refers governance "relocated" , that is to say, centered on a scale that people can still, if not face to face, at least know enough about the primary decision makers who they entrust their lives and to interact with them directly. The bio-regionalism is rooted also in the idea that the optimal scale of political interaction is precisely a "bio-region" rather vague term, but points to the underlying concern, namely: defining the reference region in part through bio-environmental characteristics that make a coherent entity. So there is a principle of territoriality at work, but that has nothing to do with the interests of ethnic or cultural homogeneity. And there is a logic underlying federalism, but that has nothing to do with fragmentation or reduction of solidarity.
Certainly, the very foundation of participatory democracy is that every citizen should have right to vote "proportional to the harm that such and such action will have on his own life. But this does not preclude that the various bioregions federated set them strong bonds of solidarity. This is precisely why, in my text, I emphasize that we should rather speak of "bio-anthropological regionalism" is not only the natural environment is important to people's daily lives, but also the daily lives that lead to other human beings, whether near or far . A reflex usual critics of regionalism (and we understand when we see the tensions afflicting that plague our current federal Belgium but also in Europe) is that each sub-federal entity will tend to fall back on itself, to emphasize the daily life of its own members and not taken into account in daily life other regions which will have a direct and negative effect on its own members. Thus, citizens of Walloon Brabant does nothing to seek measures that would allow local citizens of Hainaut Limburg or to live better - and they were concerned about the daily life of Hainault Limburg or if it allows improve their daily lives to them, Brabant. It is indeed a possibility, but it does not invalidate such as regionalism - simply, it highlights the need to create institutions infra-and supra-regional carrier interconnection and solidarity, rather than withdrawal and selfishness. Insofar as any bio-anthropo-region "will never be fully autonomous, but only semi-autonomous, this issue is indeed crucial.
current participatory economics ( Participatory Economics or ParEcon ), which I mentioned earlier, is based on the belief that an interlocking "committees" citizens, expressing aspirations, wishes and requirements that go back then to the next level, could help solve at least part of the problems of withdrawal and on to itself. The acceptance by each sub-region, register constitutionally in a federal structure with high subsidiarity is a necessary condition for the sustainability of bio-anthropological regionalism: what can be decided locally because the effects of the decision were mainly local impact will be decided locally without interference from higher levels; for decisions featuring more external effects between sub-regions, a body senior steps in and sets priorities and tradeoffs, and so on. What differentiates this kind of system of federalism we have here or there, it is assumed to operate on the bottom of a disconnection of the various entities from the logical trap of globalized capitalism. My great skepticism of green capitalism comes mainly from this necessity (the green capitalism ignores, of course) not work in a system where, at the outset, all of our local decisions are subject to censorship because of higher levels that the "requirements" of global capitalism are ( has) that whatever is decided locally has an impact on "markets" and (b ) that whatever is decided at higher levels - especially on "markets" - has an impact on local levels. Is the extreme fragility of the communities, their almost total loss of resilience in a logic that escapes them, and who "is under screed, which motivates the proposed bio-anthropo-regionalist my text.
[In this context, let me comment of immediate: It is perfectly possible to condemn Greece for its extreme lax fiscal policies and its concealment without inference, as Mr. Bruno Colmant this April 28 at the RTBF-Radio, that speculative attacks against the euro on "markets" and the downgrading of bonds Greek, Portuguese and English by the rating agencies indicate a " healthy market discipline. " Of course, as explained by Mr. Colman is our states themselves who "chose" to have recourse to capital markets to finance themselves, but he certainly read the works of Frederic Lordon that show the environment that this "choice" was compelled by a neoliberal ideology and pro-capitalist to whom, of course, Mr. Colman joins - which makes it rather blind and deaf to deeper issues of addiction afflicting our federation of European states against inclinations "markets". Mr. George Papandreou may be defective, and governance Greek certainly room for improvement for decades already, but I doubt that the present Greek government happily subscribe to the ideology retrograde Lordon which showed she has chaired the deconstruction of national resilience in the 1980s, to precipitate the States on the arena "disciplining" the markets. Mr. Papandreou's speech about having to "change everything" in Greece, under the pressure of ideas politicians like Merkel and economists like Mr. Colman is a speech by circumstance and desperation, which I'm sure, does not reflect the societal vision of a majority of the Greek people.]
Believing we introduce a bio-anthropological regionalism credible while staying in principle within the horizon of green capitalism, it seems a mistake. If we try to do that, you get something that looks furiously at the current European federalism: Competition among regions to "attract investors" tax for prostitution does not weigh too much on "labor costs" (as if the life energy of people working should be counted as a burden forever, like a charge); federal decision-making bodies (sub-regional as supra-regional) for granted because the "market" as they scan an oracle finicky (they forced are to be financed from "the markets" because neo-liberalism of the "capital mobility" has made financial contributions and by taxes impracticable); enterprises prevented by the very structure of the capitalist market economy to be democratic; consumers herding and unable to realize from where the goods they buy, who produced and what conditions (and dispossessed, in fact, higher consumption of alternative local and participatory, that capitalist competition stifles).
Federalism localist I advocate must therefore go hand in hand from the outset with democracy in the workplace (see the ongoing work of Isabelle Ferreras ) and de-capitalization / de-industrialization Consumer: Creating Buyers Cooperative, partnerships between buyers and local producers . I repeat, all at the same time - because if we do one without the other, the dominant logic of capitalist competition between companies anti-democratic portfolios in search of myopic consumers and flabby, prevails. We will promote good "green industries" and a "clean growth": a post-capitalism too hesitant or too partial, will be swallowed alive by the conditioned reflexes that we all used to. The bio-anthropological regionalism will be full - at the political level as in business and consumer class - or it will not.
there understanding a little better then my attitude toward environmentalists current government? I do not see with pleasure their reluctance to show radicals. I know perfectly well that they are prisoners themselves economic logic that muzzle - but why do they prefer to stay in power, and even stabilize it by sacrificing much of their roots to the left? Probably because outside of a fringe of opportunistic electioneering, they believe the majority can outwit capitalism long enough to subvert it from within, by a patient undermining Reform? It is precisely this kind of reformist strategy that underpinned my idea of a "double trigger transition to" green capitalism first, and then (if green capitalism is properly and patiently exploited) a post-capitalism as a federation of communities participating economies resilient against global turmoil "markets", Self against each other and united with each other. To my surprise, this idea has not received an extremely enthusiastic in Ecolo, probably because the second "relaxation" is not part of current concerns in ministerial offices. Ecolo is not alone in this situation and major trade unions are equally skeptical: they do not subscribe (yet less qu'Ecolo) capitalism green but do not see how a post-capitalism would be credible to their bases. I am yet Certainly those who have found that I was the environmentalists a "bad process" are well aware, themselves, political stalemates that puts the sway of capitalist logic, his employment blackmail, his terrorist mobility investment, etc..
A commentator of my article from March 12 asked this insightful question: "What did you think of the article by Noll in the latest issue of Policy ? Is it at odds with members of his firm? Or is there a double standard? " My answer is very clear: there was a small fever of us following the episode Vif / L'Express , but I do not believe that Mr. Noll takes double talk. I think it's in his study of various trends, but the general tone is that of "realism" involves the exercise of power. It is obvious that the "transition double trigger" would not very popular if the proposed Ecolo. Probably we would attend a new saga to tobacco-Francorchamps or Delhaize to Andenne, in which the courageous environmentalists who propose to break radically with the dominant logic would be handled by the names of all their supposed "partners" or socialist Liberals - but this does he not address the feasibility of strategy for maintaining power in the current context where what matters is rather a job (patient, unrewarding and especially lackluster voice in the short term) of changing the level of awareness of citizens? The article by Jean-Marc Nollet (entitled "What, for environmentalists, is capital") in the number Policy devoted to green capitalism seems admirable - and I say this without any intention to "rub handle. It clearly raises the stakes of a radical transition to a credible post-capitalism, and if I can discuss any element of detail, I think the orientation is correct.
But if, as he writes, we need a policy of "small steps" it is also necessary that these steps are, in fact, oriented so as to see in the distance, the ultimate horizon toward which we want (as decision maker policy) to guide the lives and consciences of citizens . And it is because my eyes (I explained previously in this blog) the "10 Propositions" published in March by Ecolo do not see the horizon that I allowed myself, as researcher critical of suggest that gave birth to a mouse. This is not a question of "double talk" of a minister, not a question of "contradiction" within a particular firm - is the question that every citizen is entitled to ask: how, through the proposals you make, you give me to see beyond the horizon of radicalism in the name of which I have chosen you? course, if as suggested by analysts like Philip Corcuff or Paul Aries, it is at all the radical and democratic post-capitalist environmentalists elected in Europe, other questions arise . But that's another story, which I do not mingle here, because my goal is to sketch a horizon of radicalism which, I believe, a majority of environmentalists government could join.
