Most recently, Jean-Claude Koeune, a fellow economist, I received a comment on my paper "Economic transition and environmental transition" February 2010. He raises interesting questions, at the same time, reveal the depth of the chasm that separates those of us willing to consider a different future and those who, like him, and yet still believe in the "réformabilité" system in place - tenacious dogma, we know, lasts for decades and blithely through all the crises that capitalism requires us to cross ... I copy below the comment of Mr. Koeune (which was kindly allowed to leave and sporting his commentary and his name on this blog) and then I respond. Happy reading. [Note: My next post, do not worry, will return to constructive thinking and advances that await readers of this blog. But it is also important, as in this post and the previous one, to highlight the obstacles that the dominant thinking stands in our way. I know that people like Mr. Koeune are still being heard much more than those of us who are trying to shift the debate and bring on other issues.]
******* **************************
I'll try [to] explain the reasons for which I am, say, reluctant to face analysis Arnsperger [...]. My criticism is about his paper "Economic transition and environmental transition" from last February. [...]
Clearly he does not like our capitalist system, which is obviously the most basic right. The terms he uses to describe the show rather than repulsion system inspires him: he is "directly destructive of human potential" (p.1), he transformed our political systems into "pseudo-capitalist democracies" (p.4 ), where consumers "give free rein to their various compulsions" (p.3), in outlets "where each of us went blindly after work" in which - needless to say - he has been "squeezed like a lemon" (p.9), while the beneficiaries of the system while their "compulsive predatory extraction, appropriation and consumption" (p. 6) have "sensed the need and desirability" (p.3) for a greener capitalism. [...] By Jove!
This language does not bother me in a pamphlet or a PTB of Besancenot's speech, but it surprises me the pen of a teacher and academic researcher, and makes me question his objectivity.
But there is much more a question of form. In fact I suspect Arnsperger this: his hatred of capitalism is such that it would absolutely deny him any opportunity to improve (especially with a better framework of government and civil society) and to regenerate, and it is of course very aware of the extraordinary possibilities of recovery shown by the system with respect to the dispute. So it must nip in the bud the idea of inventing a green capitalism - is the right word - the "internalities anthropo-environmental."
Now this concept, in my opinion does not hold water. The examples given in the box on page 2 are totally unconvincing. "The time (not counted as working time) we'll go to work" but is it not largely a consequence of the fact that we have some freedom to choose our place of residence and, who chose the latter, we are not restricted in our employment opportunities to a limited geographic circle. But what! Would it be better if we lived in company towns or dormitories as business in China? Similarly, "the general impoverishment human (and most often invisible to short term) that accompanies the 'wealth generation' ... More generally, the suffering at work which is recognized ... in any record ...". Certainly I do not deny the suffering at work ("work is not made for man, and the proof is that it tires him" saying, I think, Voltaire) but there is also a well-being at work, which is not recorded. The balance would tip it more in favor of the latter in the new economic system and poorly defined qu'Arnsperger been calling? confess believe more, to decrease the discomfort at work, and for more equitable balance of ill-being and well-being, action association and the government, as part of our system.
Arnsperger I look for it a little more rigorously define the "internalities anthropo-environmental" and especially to demonstrate a little more seriously than those internalities in our system are mainly negative and are sentenced to remain so unless the radical transformation. Because it is a key point of his argument.
JCK
*****************************************
The author of these lines knows in capitalism: Jean-Claude Koeune has long worked in banking and financial center, as chief economist in a large commercial bank - to a level of responsibility which, undoubtedly, the "welfare to work" prevailed (helped by the level of pay) on ill-being.
Note that Mr. Koeune calls "for more equitable balance of ill-being and welfare, trade union action and the government, under our system ( my emphasis). If he had read the previous articles of this blog, he clearly saw what I give the actual latitude of action now, "as part of our system", unions and governments. The recent crisis, still in progress, public debt in the EU demonstrates repeatedly that, "under our system" where private actors to finance and notation make the law, neither unions nor powers public have no choice but to march. The IMF has again reiterated in its latest report on Belgium: to resist the "pressure of financial markets," it is urgent to "streamline" government spending (not to scare off "investors" who are yet very little risk) and dismantle the protections Labour ending, in particular, the automatic indexation of wages (indexing, the IMF said, could "transmit economic shocks across the economy" - the implicit ideology is that it is better than these are the workers who absorb these shocks in the front line, rather than banks and "investors" who sweeten discreetly at the back of the pack).
In the language "rigorous" with which Mr. Koeune would like me to reconnect, it's called "market discipline". Hence, of course, the contradiction in his remarks: probably appear as a progressive above all suspicion, he calls on governments and unions within a logic that was stripped of any real authority and has made them co-managers of private profitability . [Decryption tool for use by the public: look around you, the rhetoric is to appeal to the government, regulation and control in a democratic system which, for decades, methodically erode the flexibility of states and latitudes of democracy. Observe that rhetoric is the preserve of people who, often without realizing it, want to give a polished progressive while accepting the logic place.]
Mr. Koeune indeed can not be accused of naivety: he himself has made clear, a few lines before, be like me, like all of us, "very aware of the possibility of recovery shown by the system respect of the dispute. " Very nice trick, let's face it: although not very interested in social criticism, he uses one of the most popular themes in current social criticism - that of "recovery", including dear to sociologists Luc Boltanski and Eve in their Chiapello New Spirit of Capitalism - to show ... exactly the opposite ! Namely, that capitalism has the capacity "to improve (especially with a better framework of government and civil society) and regenerate." Note the use, once again, the government - and this time the "civil society" in place here, including the need to suppose the unions. In banking and financial turmoil, so budget and pay - in full economic tsunami where states are sinking in debt a loan shark and where workers lose their jobs by the tens of thousands - Mr. Koeune (but it is far from the only one) that we preach States and the unions will be able to "improve" in the better regulation of the system that is currently strangling them. [A factual note: As part of Basel III on banking regulation, banking lobbies are spending huge sums to minimize regulation, including increasing capital ratios. When we see what levels of prudential rate large banks deem "excessive", we quickly convinced that indeed, this is about greed and predation. Let it not, a startled, we speak of "democracy." We are well, thanks to powerful economic actors and their ability nuisance, in a pseudo capitalist democracy . My colleague Fred Lordon wrote things without calling on those aspects of the issue. I advise you to his two books Until when? and The crisis of too .]
What about humor, slightly tinged with bad taste, in respect of the suffering at work? The quotation from Voltaire can certainly raise a smile between two small furnaces in the cocktail lounge of a large bank. But what the hell! Results - rigorous, dear Mr. Koeune, scientific, not sponsored by PTB ... - That sociologists and psychologists bring businesses (large and small) where they encounter employees, these results are conclusive. We believe today that the monetary and financial bottlenecks faced by employees and household simply reflects a kind of natural harshness of the work ("that the fatigue," quipped Voltaire) is a contradiction to the least disastrous. And M. Koeune obviously trying to make us believe that, as he says, he "does not deny the suffering at work." But if, of course, he denies it! He denies , even - for the simple reason that to admit such a profound phenomenon, prevalent, order Epidemiological almost, it would have to accept that "our" system is exhausted. It would have to admit that capitalism has become structurally unable to provide people with something other than debt (collateral reduction of essential public services in the future) and piles of consumer goods - if not widespread poverty. What would possibly Mr. Koeune out of its denial would be to consult clinical research in sociology on the capitalist labor, with authors such as Vincent Gaulejac, Christopher and Thomas Dejours Somersault (to name a few ). It could also read plant Vincent De Raeve, which I mentioned in a previous article. He could finally go and see the remarkable books of Anne Salmon and Isabelle Ferreras . It would become quickly convinced that the negative internalities supplant, indeed, internalities positive, and rethink the status of work today requires a radical democratization, not just another version "green" pseudo-capitalist democracy.
I note in passing that in speaking of "internalities" I invented nothing, contrary to the claims of Mr. Koeune. I simply repeated an expression proposed in years 1970 by Ivan Illich to make spotted the "domestic effects" of the system that we do not recognize as they have no significant impact on the private profitability. And it's partly a question of balance of power. The initial idea of social democracy was, of course, were the wages of workers who had to integrate these internal effects and "compensate" the drudgery. (For this reason, one suspects, both Mr. Koeune myself should receive an hourly wage far below that of a worker at the steel hot or a supermarket cashier. This is or her case, nor mine.) But this beautiful idea wage compensation was shattered long ago; today when financial rents payable (dividend and interest on various bank debt) net wages cut corners but overall net income of households, and where globalization makes a downward pressure on wages no thank you, there is no question of "offset" of suffering at work. Internalities anthropological (that is to say the negative effects, and invisible to the capitalist employment on quality of life) prevail without anyone, and certainly not the States nor the unions can not do much 'thing in the ambient logic system. Everyone is too busy to stampede can. In this context, what a good idea - at least if we want to save the logic of private profitability while providing maximum air "not deny" his misdeeds - to appeal to the regulation by government government and unions!
skepticism of Mr. Koeune against environmental internalities is revealing, in my opinion, the inability of many alleged progressives to understand contemporary issues. Reread the passage on travel by car and on the "company town" and "corporate dormitories" Chinese. Here is the equivalent, in Ecology, the classic opposition between capitalism and communism. You know the old song: do not recognize the virtues of the system in place is the "hate" and he preferred ... Communism (did not there be more than suspicious of Aquaint with TBP or with the NPA of Besancenot?). The refrain here is intensifying, and returns for a ride: do not recognize the virtues of mobility into employment and the geographical expansion of "our job opportunities", that is their preference ... regimentation of Chinese Communism. Mr. Koeune suggests that it is really urgent - and probably good for the growth imperative of the economy world - that every Chinese has a car so that he, too, exercise the "freedom to choose their place of residence." The implication for the relocation of economic activities, a return to extended and rhythms smaller, we must prefer the rule of "freedom." Should it not read the emergency analysis of Illich-cons on productivity and calculations clear and unambiguous (scientists, too, not sponsored by the Chinese Communist Party) Jean Robert and Jean-Pierre Dupuy The betrayal of affluence ? To read them, we get a picture of the human and ecological effects caused by our dependence on consumption, debt and therefore has to paid employment need to get where he is - image, dating from 1970, is still qu'aggravée today.
But never mind: Mr. Koeune has to deconstruct my analysis, diagnosis all encased in this "objectivity" which he says makes me so lacking. You see, in my depths, I would be driven by one thing: my "hatred of capitalism." Anyway, while having been a beneficiary shameless in my life, I feel today and I observe around me too harmful effects to still believe in its "regeneration". Let's say I oppose this system and its logic for ethical reasons ... Call it the "hatred", it involves only you. It is true that, on your side, long economist in a bank, you may not be a "hatred" against the system that your favors. Many "ordinary economists" (to use the beautiful expression of Etienne de Callatay ) have all their lives, having in view the general interest - they are victims of this illusion shared by all the singers of Private Bills, who believe for example that the capitalist banking sector (thus both private and for-profit ) is able to allocate more resources to the most useful purpose in society.
We will therefore time again, we preach a green capitalism financed by a commercial banking sector will "regenerate" the economy and direct it toward what requires "general interest" . And it is strange, in fact, Mr. Koeune, you feel both the need to answer me and point my "hatred" of "your" system - because it's obviously you and people like you that we will listen again for quite some time. Yet you seem a little worried. Nervous. Your rhetoric on the PWB, Besancenot and communism should not fool anyone yet. If I were you, this is not what would scare me. The PTB and Besancenot are harmless, and you know like me. What frightens many more business and economists are good complexion, is that finally a number of citizens are aware of the logic that drives "our" system. This is only the favor of the banking crisis, fiscal crises to come, and the dollar crisis that perhaps we expected a few years, but very sincere commitments problematic economists straddling the large bank, the high finance and economics education, lose their luster in retrospect.
"Our" system and its banking sector have included the requirement growth into our bodies and our souls. To feed the pensions of more affluent and also, increasingly, just to get ourselves a bit of thought correct, we are obliged to contribute daily to this great "wealth generation" who has not, to my knowledge, demonstrated its ability to eradicate inequality while safeguarding the environment. The banking sector lends money it does not force people and for his own benefit, bring him to the principal with interest that have no justification. (Do not tell us especially that pays interest savings - you know it's a lie. The interest pays banks, as a sector, give 17 or 20 times the deposit and the savings they receive. Maurice Allais, Nobel laureate in economics, compared to that of counterfeiting legalized by lobbying hard in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.) It's that logic that "our" system feeds and your fear, worried that voius're a so-called "public interest" may be that citizens are finally waking up. You do, I think, not at all afraid of communism, but of has the democratization of finance and currency, the dispossession of the financial elites of a wrongful monopoly they hold in the shade for a long time - in short, you are afraid of economic democracy, egalitarianism and the awareness of citizens . (Conspiracy theory? It is always easy to fall back on it ... The logic at work, which a majority of blind people and benefits a minority, is not necessarily a conspiracy. The Read on Grip of Death Michael Rowbotham, you may open your eyes.)
Facing the green capitalism that you call your vows as a symbol of the new conversion of "our" system, as a symbol of its remarkable adaptability , the guesswork of small citizens apparently well you seem weaklings. But objectivity, of course, is on your side. The alternatives are that look in your eyes, "poorly defined". And then? Read, pray, Resisting is creating Miguel Benasayag and Florence Aubenas. They will show you with rigor - rigor but very different from yours, I concede - That the future can not be decreed and it is born, it emerges from below (that's the real democracy ...) when citizens are aware of the cruel limitations that the current logic the faces.
It is these limits then, of course, that you really really want to minimize or even deny. Your attempt is called, in strict philosophical terms, the "naturalization" try to make it appear as natural and inevitable that, in fact, may be reconsidered and passed. And as the best sign of the strange hatred (though muffled, well hidden, well polished and polite) that you seem to live, I invite readers of this blog to read that sentence again for your pen "Certainly I do not deny the suffering at work ('work is not made for man, and the proof is that it's the fatigue 'said, I think, Voltaire), but there is also a well-being at work, which is not recorded. " Specifically, it must be well become the very meaning of work, despite and even through the fatigue. It takes more than human beings should live under the yoke of logical monetary and financial sector where you have worked as chief economist always want to strengthen - not for the common good, but for the constant creation of private pension fnancières. And that is why, you see, that unlike you I believe in alternatives still "poorly defined" in gestation because of citizens' movements in too little awareness of power relations that prevail. They exist, these alternatives, they already think and live in small networks, but the logic implemented by "our" system - the system that you want to "refresh" once again, as the hydra raises his head a crisis of legitimacy has cut - prevent them from deploying.
I therefore urge Mr. Koeune after reading this post it, check out the one I put online in a few days and explain to him, as other readers of this blog, I think what horizons glimpse into a genuine transition.
0 comments:
Post a Comment