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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment