Plastic Pants Gallery

Transition Management "human commodity"

No, I'm not going to make a comprehensive analysis of the Belgian elections of 13 June 2010. The Web is filled with everything you need . What I would just do it from the elections to ask a question: if, in half of Francophone countries, the Socialist Party has not only outpaced the neoliberals of the Reform Movement (MR) - which is fortunate for me - but also, and further, the party Ecolo, do not have a fundamental weakness of the ecology of government to which I have already given way in a lot of other posts on this blog?

Let me explain. Environmentalists, and this is obviously laudable, want to anchor the revival of politics in what they call ecological transition of our economy . You remember that was the title of "10 Propositions" of Ecolo March, and is also one of the cornerstones of every program. What is the finding that, according to Jean-Michel Javaux and colleagues, requires this ecological transition? This is the same as Tim Jackson is also in his book Prosperity without growth (see my previous post), and motivates the whole movement of Cities and communities in transition: there is currently an explosive mix between global warming and depletion of oil resources (renewable and non-general), and the multiple environmental degradation can be prevented by a continuation of business as usual . In fact, as shown by the majority of studies, it is not that we have in the basement too little oil is that we have too : Long before that we are short of fossil fuels, we will run out of planet ... You can not challenge the validity of this observation. The ecological transition economy is a necessity, and works such as Jackson are opening pathways clear and precise meaning.

But then, if it comes back to the Belgian elections, why the tidal wave, tidal and stagnant socialist environmentalist? Perhaps because the notion of "ecological transition" is insufficient. Perhaps because the PS has, historically, and despite his many betrayals of the socialist ideal, could build on another idea, equally crucial: even before that we are running out of planet, we will - and we're already in a long time - short of humanity . And wham! That we in the mouth corner, and I'm also really not sure that the "tenor" of the party wrapped up in his heavy structures (which are often more socialist than the name) are aware that their message is one. But the fact that socialism has been built since the nineteenth century on from this observation as the Marxism currents called "utopian" (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Owen, etc..) natural resource whose ecology is the most damaged, scorned, denied the logic of capitalism is the " human resource ". With this result, not the least of the paradoxes: it is equally important that the resources of nature are treated more as such, that is to say that human beings must learn to treat them as commodities natural and therefore fragile, it is important that all humans stop treating each other as "natural resources" exploitable. We must admit, into our economic rules that human beings have dignity "on-natural" - dignity the modern Enlightenment, the thinking of human rights and the great spiritual traditions of humanity have always asserted.

I think it is this need for human ecology (one anthropologist environmentalism as I called in my paper "Transition ecological and economic transition") is the strength of socialist discourse. Ecologists, they seem to have failed to make the need for human ecology sufficiently credible to voters. Why? The analysis would be lengthy. Certainly the speeches held caricatures about ecology in the neo-liberal circles as in socialist circles were weighed and it has continued to make people believe that political ecology was the enemy of employment, as environmentalists prefer spiders and small birds to humans. More ridiculous, you die ... but hey, to a certain segment of the electorate, it works. Also, I still fear that the lack of radical left Ecolo (which I mentioned in previous posts, we can see if you think I'm exaggerating here) ended up doing a party like "soft center" that has not offered an alternative sufficiently visible to people. What alternative is there? Basically, in my view, that of economic transition that would call into question the fundamental obsession of employment as it is conveyed by both the MR by the PS. (As for the HRC, I am voting because I gave more to understand what this line centrist party intends to follow.)

The strength of the PS compared with Ecolo is that it can make believe people that the "transition" can be done without questioning the logic of wage, without questioning the notion same employment (including public administration, where everything is not good), and without questioning either growth. Message: we will recreate the prosperity (indeed, Wallonia is a little better in terms of GDP per head) and go back to face the social security regionalization tendencies Bart De Wever. Essentially, therefore, we will remount the traditional union model and social dialogue as it was set up after the war, and we will fight to make Belgium a competitive economy and solidarity. Not bad, except that it obscures the message can only be called fraud of the job: as under the aegis of these same socialists who have ruled for decades, the state has waived its prerogatives Logistics and support radical social innovation, to become a supplier of services to the private sector and a supplier of public employee jobs - as, therefore, that this evolution took place under the name of "social democracy", we were made to swallow that employment was the reason for being.

long time I wavered on this issue. I still say now that yes, having a job seem important - surely, moreover, precisely because people voted because employment PS is their No. 1 priority before the issues of identity and community. And it is true that as long as you need an employment for a living, I prefer that the party in power is the PS rather than the MR (because it has the merit of being terribly clear: employment must be created, adjusted and paid on a competitive basis, by private capital in search of maximum profits). Nevertheless: this hostage by the collective sense of "employability" has something very problematic.

If you feel you up in the just indignation against such nonsense, and if you say that, definitely, these academic intellectuals "shirkers" are paid to say anything, I suggest you really and urgently , reading a little book published four years ago: The plant Vincent De Raeve. This modest and almost shy man was 11 years worker in a factory for making paper, and thoughts that drew sharp are absolutely wonderful. You read (I recommend doing out loud), you punched in the stomach almost every page, and you'll be forever convinced (e) "Employment" is not in itself a panacea. No, work does not make sense to a life like that, as such. Not depend on an exploitative boss (because written in a ruthless competition, so obsessed with consumerist and performance) can not go home with a desire to change the world. No, the unions are not up to the challenges of a radical transition. Certainly, having operated and oppressive work is better than nothing. We can develop a "sense" despite the daily boredom and wear, and may even make the experience of size "policy". Of course, being unemployed in our society is a human catastrophe, and it is far better than a neoliberal world unions sauce MR-UWE-FEB. But the world of employment will remain forever in this inhuman logic where we are forced to live, a place of human livestock management, handling and food handling human resources for the competitive struggle between capitals and between jurisdictions. (If you're interested, you can go read my carte blanche in Le Soir, 31 May, about the resumption of some supermarket group Carrefour Mestdagh.) It is on this issue then the PS we maintinedra much longer in the dark, and only if Ecolo finally dares to embrace the radical party that may become a political force really exciting. Ecolo that executives read the book by Vincent Raeve, they understand the dehumanization and suffering that the PS is bent on minimizing (while promising, hand on heart, combat !...) and they operate the last turn! (And if they really need a boost in addition, why not office Thierry Ongenaed?)

In fact, the softening of government environmentalists comes mostly from what they have come to ignore (in their public political acts, not necessarily in terms of individual members) the heart of political ecology: Capitalism squanders the human resource with the same ferocity it wastes natural resources and human ecology is the need to address first - closely linked to environmental ecology, but in keeping alive and active and uncompromising critique of capitalism. It is not by trying to Ecolo party mainstream, refusing to make proposals "unpopular" and tries to flirt with the electorate MR while advocating an "ecological transition of our economy" ( capitalist), Mr. Javaux and his cronies manage to differentiate the PS and CDH. Because in the arena of management accommodating capitalism, the PS is the strongest. That the Socialists have up being really left Ecolo should not push to do the same, I believe it.

The task is not easy so far, for sure. Rethinking an economy where prosperity does not coincide with growth, where obsession with productivity of the work was abandoned, and where the obsession of the job is replaced by the right to "unemployment" creator (to use the expression of the father of political ecology, Ivan Illich) is substantial work. Because the very notion of unemployment is pejorative, and even that of "unemployed" is not appropriate as it suggests that everyone, deep down, longs to be "used" by someone. And do not be so irresponsible as to advocate, in the current policy vacuum, a universal allowance or a radical egalitarianism, as of today, would play the capitalists. But at the same time, do not stick to the "social struggle" conventional, even in this political vacuum, have become synonymous with internal reorganization of capitalism, of resignation to the exploitation of labor and loss of autonomy ad vitam workers. If I were to suggest another "transitional double trigger," it might be this:

• First, bring to power a socialist party obsessed employment and competitiveness, of course, but at least still capable (led, nevertheless, a certain radicalization citizen?) Struggles to support union and maintain safeguards against the ravages of neoliberalism.
• Secondly, bring to power a strong Green party "left" and become capable of promoting not only an ecological transition "of our economy," but a transition economic in good and due form - a transition- Beyond the structural impasses of employment, the "employability" and its cruel alienation.

I dream? Probably. Not so crazy, I hope. But yes, I dream. It's my job, actually. I am an employee of the public sector, miraculously paid to report through the system which, in the present state of things, my finances. (Long live our democracy, which allows this.) Meanwhile, I'm kind of artist, very independent and supremely happy to be. That's all I can wish for, from the heart, to the hundreds of thousands of people who inhabit the buildings in city centers and factories such as Vincent Raeve. I dream, but I do not dream for anything. Thank you to you to pay taxes and contributions that allow me, and a few other colleagues too rare for my taste, body and soul to get involved in this work. It is an honor and a responsibility. I hope this can be helpful.

Thrush Every Month After Period

Transition to a "growth without prosperity"?

Tim Jackson's book, Prosperity Without Growth (Earthscan, London, 2009), recently translated into French under the title Prosperity without growth (De Boeck & Etopia, Brussels, 2010 ) is a very important milestone in the reflection on political ecology. It will be essential in the future, in all discussions on the guidance to our economies and our societies in a context of transition. (The subtitle French, moreover, is "The transition to a sustainable economy," showing that the preliminary report of the Sustainable Development Commission which was the basis for the book.)

Jackson offers a remarkable analysis the context in which currently facing the challenges of transition: a logic of ecological debt and economic imperative driven by a perpetual growth, itself rooted in consumerism based on the relentless quest for novelty, within ' a social world where the "language of material goods the predominant means of communication between people. It also explains (in a very clear language, which is one of the virtues of structure constants) why it is absurd to invoke the notion of "disconnection" as a solution to the challenges of climate change and resource scarcity. Indeed, it comes eventually to believe that we can maintain or exceed current rates of accumulation using energy flows constantly reduced. The author demonstrates, evidence supporting figures (and the degree of statistical documentation of his work is impressive throughout throughout his book) that the odds of such an "absolute disconnection" are practically nil. Jackson does not deny that - far from it - the importance of technological advances in the environmental fight, but it closes permanently (and healthily) the door to the fantasies of a "high productivity of the intangible" that wants one could one day produce all the goods demanded by consumers with a grain of sand, for a hyper-efficient.

It will therefore inevitably, according to Jackson, to come to reduce our rates of consumption and therefore production. Without becoming an adversary of dogmatic growth, as our author - in large pragmatic it looks like - never use the word "decay". The expression, indeed more happy, "prosperity without growth" allows him to pussyfoot: there must be limits on the emission of pollutants (including CO2), but not necessarily a radical change compared to nature, there must be "green" investments in reduced profitability, but not necessarily an abandonment of the financial logic as such, we must abandon the obsession with labor productivity, but not in all sectors (as it remains sectors which will be more productive imperative), and it should certainly not challenge the logic wage labor as such, must call into question the social causes of consumerism (language material goods, social status, race, compulsion to novelty), but he is not questioning the "human nature".

More generally, if the market economy does contain the seeds of problems that drive us to seek growth at any price, in the eyes of Jackson we need not necessarily bind to growth and capitalism. (He is opposed in this, including Richard Douthwaite in his book The Growth Illusion , according to the structure of bank debt in the capitalist imperative impulse absolute growth.) So the question of anti-capitalism and post-capitalism is removed by the author in two tablespoons pot shots. Society without growth will she capitalist or not? It is not important to him. Only count the actual opportunities for each citizen, access to skills development the most important food, shelter, health, education, friendship, love, meaning. (This is the approach inspired by the "capabilities" of the economist Amartya Sen). We'll see later if this development is really possible in the framework proposed by Jackson. As

key measures against consumerism and productivism, Jackson alleges the takeover of investment by the government, abandoning the quest for labor productivity to generate a service economy with high labor intensity, the frugality chosen and work sharing. One can not blame him, as these ideas already fairly well known in Francophone may appear in the Anglo-Saxon context where Jackson is changing as economic heresies. "Virtue" - if one may say - the work of Jackson is to suggest that the critical frontal (especially Marxist) of capitalism is perhaps not essential to reflect on the transition. He said we could pass to a new economy if states (with the help of scientists) are able to calculate ecological limits and to equalize incomes, if citizens regain control over their development, they realize their consumerist alienation, and if economists are willing to fundamentally reconstruct their science into a Ecological Economics where the constraints are first bio-environmental and explicit.

Jackson is clearly a strategist. His remarks are perhaps more radical than it seems, but he chose to hide his game is probably, in fact, which will give the book a wider audience than has been possible to obtain a work, in my view, deeper and more radical as that of Serge Latouche, The Leap decay (Fayard, Paris, 2006 ). The strength of the book Latouche is that it goes further in reaching implications for prosperity without growth. Certainly, Latouche, and Jackson share the bias of not wanting to change "human nature". I will return later. Yet where Jackson only scratches the issues, Latouche with its "eight R" (re, re-conceptualize and restructure, redistribute, relocate, reduce, reuse, recycle) advance tracks much more explicit - particularly in the field of economic relocation and the takeover of the citizen money creation. Jackson, a good strategist and perhaps also in more conventional thinker simply, never touch these two key issues of our system: international trade and currency.

International Trade: When Jackson advocates of resilient communities, it is unclear what such communities provide if not a greater capacity for integration into the globalized trade flows. (And his few positive hints seem fair trade indicate that it does not challenge the corporate globalization. See footnote 11, pp. 193-194.) It was therefore rather seems to me he thought Anglo-Saxon community resilience as a tool to protect individuals against the inevitable turbulence of a global economy. In Latouche, as in Douthwaite, the more radical elements of the local resilience, more related to the quest for autonomy deep (see in particular the prospect of Ivan Illich), are more emphasized.

Currency: On a recent day of work on complementary currencies, Bernard Lietaer we explained very convincingly that the element to which any economist, even moderately "protest" as Krugman or Stiglitz, dares to attack is the system of money creation by commercial banks and the idea that only a single legal currency can serve medium of exchange. He explained that by the overlapping between the concrete world of ideas éconmiques and the banking and finance. The silence of Jackson would play the role of banks and a currency change in the "resilience" of communities indicates that it respects, too, the absolute taboo. In Latouche, as in Douthwaite or Lietaer (or Margrit Kennedy), the idea that the local currency could serve as a tool for healthy communities disconnection is much more present. This

what Jackson says almost nothing, that's the kind of work that would be offered to workers through a work-sharing (with reduction of the statutory period) in a process where the investment public "green", less consumerist and more labor intensive, would become predominant. What place does it give to the trend of the current system not only wasting resources but also a waste of resources? The heart of political ecology is it not the fact that for capitalism, the human is just part of "natural resources" to manage? How to ensure that this vision totally instrumental humans be abandoned, along with consumerism? On this key issue, Jackson's book says nothing explicit. This is unfortunate and this makes even my eyes, a rather dangerous book. It illustrates that in my paper "Transition ecological and economic transition", I call the commonplaces of environmentalism: climate change and waste of nonrenewable resources are certainly critical challenges, and we have indeed rethink investment strategies long-term function of these challenges but must also include issues "anthropo-environmental" reflection.

Replace GDP with other indicators will not in itself a sufficient gesture in this regard. Emphasize the need to rethink the personal development of citizens outside the language of consumer goods does not suffice in itself. We can not simply say that "it is likely that the new economy [no growth] will be less 'capital'" (Jackson, p. 196). Capitalism is not simply a system where "ownership and control over means of production belong to the sphere private and state alike "(ditto ) there is obviously also a state capitalism. A key aspect of capitalism is that people's lives are regimented by the imperative of profitability of capital, ie search for a surplus between revenues and costs in return right to the owner of capital (whether state or private person). How this key aspect, this aspect extractive-grabbing " Is considered by Jackson? It is not clear at all. Reducing hours of work and share the remaining work within the framework of a society where consumption is slowing, much will it lead to capitalism fiercest again, where people who work will be squeezed like lemons to produce goods less abundant, and to work in "green jobs" intensive manpower? Share the work can coincide with social disasters and abuses of power and power relations exacerbated.

Basically, the danger of the approach of Jackson is his silence about the quality of work and especially the (s) scheme (s) of property that would accompany (es) the transition to prosperity without growth. Certainly, he said vaguely that "employee ownership" (p. 197) offers prospects - but that is a model completely compatible with capitalist exploitation and alienation, as the model of incentive pay or that of co-management. Still true to its strategy of drowning fish, Jackson writes: "The requirements of the new economy we call to revisit and supervise the concepts of productivity, profitability, asset ownership, and control the distribution of surplus. Wherever can lead us to this exploration, two things are clear: investment in assets is crucial and the ecology of this investment is very different from the current functioning of capital markets. (...) Is this still capitalism? Does it really matter? "(P. 197) Certainly, if the State's task is to re-regulate finance and investment so as to modify the" ecology of investment "(that is to say coexistence of assets more or less profitable, more or less long term), and if you like Jackson believes that the state is able to handle this task, it is possible to imagine a social democracy where the green appetites of the most powerful actors can be harnessed and controlled. Suddenly, Jackson thinks, capitalism would lose its abrasive and destructive aspect and become a nice dog to serve consumers become reasonable with ... the state, there too.

Because yes, Jackson believes that the fight against consumerism will only be possible if the state intervenes and sets (from above, therefore) social conditions allowing everyone to get out of its isolation. Which? Mainly by changing the "signals" that we perceive and which we respond. New signs, new players. What new signals? This is especially the ban on advertising to children, the return of public financing in the media to reduce dependence on advertisers and the strengthening of commercial standards (fair trade, durable consumer goods) (see Jackson, p. 182). With such signals, we suggest the author, our choice of personal frugality become less heavy to bear as we proceed into a social world more buoyant. You can not really object to such ideas make sense - except that, while appealing to communities of practice and to philosophical and spiritual traditions (p. 152), Jackson insists (Latouche as I have said) the intangible nature of "human nature". No need to touch it. So, you're lost. On what, exactly, should be the effort of citizens? If I decide to frugality, it is according to Jackson because that frugality was always in me, waiting in somehow, but was stifled by the social context. It is certainly a part of reality, but to first choice of frugality, is what I should not have done work on myself? And state actors themselves, which Jackson also shows they are caught in a dilemma between long and short term (p. 167), did not they (like Jackson himself as an economist has become "heterodox") work to do on themselves personally, for a change of perspective? Does the transition to prosperity without growth does not require both new collective norms and new ways of being human?

Because if Jackson is right to say (as a result of many works in psychology and philosophy of economics) that consumerism is based on the fear of lack, I think he glosses over the need a change in "human nature". If consumerism was anchored in a fixed human nature and ultimately, we do not see how even the new collective norms that Jackson proposes could win the battle against the obsession with novelty. This is not, fortunately. Consumerism is rooted in profound anxieties in us, but we can - all our spiritual traditions attest - To overcome these fears. Does the community give us access to resources "meaning" real so that we can overcome our fears, so consumerism, therefore growth? Jackson, unfortunately, said nothing, nor indeed Latouche. It seems to me that thinking about the economic transition can not do without changing human nature, the anthropological change, so also fundamental cultural change. This is not a case of new public standards of consumption - is a matter of increased public support to work of citizens themselves . And that means also publicly support the people who dare to engage in alternative community experiences. (See my recent article "Down utopia, long live democracy deep!", In No. 63 of the journal Policy .)

Should not tie prosperity without growth at a "return of religion, "or even ( horribile dictu) the institutionalization of a state religion? Of course not! Citizens have enough emotional and intellectual capacity to "connect" on philosophical and spiritual traditions which "move" in the public space (if we let them move) and which may enable them to work on their depths. Admittedly, as Jackson says, must rethink the "ecology" of investment to allow coexistence between the requirements of short-term profitability and opportunities for building long-term, but well, is that we should not rethink the "ecology" research tools allow philosophical and spiritual coexistence between different "human experiments" in our societies? Prosperity without growth says nothing about it, almost. Yet this is part of the governance of prosperity!

short, it is unclear whether the prosperity without economic growth according to Jackson is a transition to post-capitalism. It does not matter to him, I'm not so sure because as I said, the issue of quality of work and capitalist exploitation is not resolved. We do not know either if prosperity without growth corresponds to a transition to a public space where the work of citizens themselves is really possible. It is equally worrisome, because as I said, the issues of deprivation, death, suffering, distress can not be addressed by new standards of public consumption.

It would be regrettable that the book Jackson, with his characteristic clarity and is one of his virtues, be used to evacuate or to obscure the issues more radical than other jobs, like those of Latouche ( The challenge of decreasing , Small treatise decay serene ) or even those of a Paul Aries ( No. Conso , grow and Disobey: Towards a society of decrease , Voluntary simplicity against the myth of abundance ) , raised more explicitly. Still, the publication of this book is a very important event. We can not, henceforth not be "Jacksonian." It is a clear starting point, but accurate as perfectible, to want too win consensus, it hides or scrambles perhaps more radical issues. Continuing the debate!