Today's Topics:
1. France, Alternative Libertaire - Travelogue, A libertarian
communist in the YPG # 05: An emotional funeral (fr, it, pt)
[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL #271 - Economy: Universal
income: a measure of the left ? (fr, it, pt) [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. black rose fed: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
LIBERTARIANISM AND ANARCHISM?
By Tom Wetzel (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Britain, afed: system-malfunction (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
"Drowned in a compact crowd of more than 6,000 people who came to honor the militants who
fell to defend the revolution." ---- Alternative libertarian reproduces the blog posts
Kurdistan-Autogestion-Revolution , a travel diary of a fellow committed to the YPG. ----
Over the course of the weeks, he will testify to the life of the fighting militias, the
debates that take place there and the experience of democratic confederalism in the
liberated zones. ---- Surroundings of Dekrik, April 29, 2017 ---- It is already the second
time since my arrival in Rojava that I participate in a ceremony in the sehiden (" martyrs
") ... Already, the first time, it had marked me. But here it was different, firstly by
the number of buried martyrs (20) and the symbolic, since they were the victims not of
Daech, but of the bombing of the Turkish fascist state on the YPG-YPG HQ in The Canton of
Afrîn. It's hard to describe the atmosphere. What we feel when we witness this kind of
ceremony, drowned in a compact crowd of more than 6,000 people who came to honor the
militants who fell to defend the revolution.
It is a moment at once sad but full of strength, courage and paradoxically a form of joy.
People come from everywhere, from all communities, the Syriac Christians rub shoulders
with Muslims, Yezidis, and so on. All gathered to pay tribute to those who fell.
Of course I do not do it. We see that communities are still struggling to mix. But they
find themselves for the same reason, in the same place, I think that here it means a lot
of things.
From a Western point of view, this cult of the martyrs may be a little put off ... But
what I can understand is a way of materializing the slogan " sehid namerrin " (" martyrs
do not die ").
They do not die because the struggle, the cause (confederalism) continue.
It gives courage ... and courage it takes to face the Daech fanatics or the 8 th army in
the world (Turkey).
It is hard to imagine when one has not lived it, but these events are a thousand places of
the stilted and mortifying ceremonies of our States. Here, it makes sense, there is no
barrier between the militiamen and the people, we form a whole. There is not that cold
distance which exists between all the armies of mercenaries of the State and the people
whom they are supposed to defend. Here everybody is one, one mixes, one embraces, We
discuss, share the water, so precious in these hours of great sunshine. People also dredge
themselves, discreetly, breathing a joyous revolutionary disorder - life, in short.
Arthur Aberlin
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Un-communiste-libertaire-dans-les-YPG-05-Des-funerailles-pleines-d-emotion
------------------------------
Message: 2
Universal income was put at the heart of the " left " primary by Benoît Hamon. But what
exactly is this measure put forward by so many politicians claiming the left as the right?
---- Universal income has emerged in the primary campaign of the " Belle Alliance
populaire ", defended by Benoît Hamon as a left-wing idea, guaranteeing each and everyone
the means to live in a society where full employment has become inaccessible. Yet, the
idea of universal income is historically rather a liberal idea. ---- Thus, one of the
first attempts to achieve universal income occurred in the 1970s in the United States.
Defended by John Kenneth Galbraith and 1,200 Keynesian and Liberal economists, he is then
called the Demogrant, and is shaped by James Tobin (a theoretician of the capital move tax
that bears his name) and included in The program of Democrat George McGovern, beaten in
the 1972 presidential election by Richard Nixon.
A scam to break Safely
This type of universal income would be a minimum parachute that would allow us to live,
albeit very poorly, by remaining below the poverty line, like the " decent income " of
Manuel Valls.
In France, the RMI, which has since become RSA, is a basic income of this type, although
it is increasingly accompanied by workfare- type constraints , that is, an obligation to
seek employment, working " voluntary " unpaid, for example the county council of
Haut-Rhin who managed to impose it, illegally, in February.
We note that it cohabits with social security, unemployment and pensions, but that it is
far below the poverty line: an RSA alone is at 463 euros, an RSA + APL (housing
assistance) has a ceiling of 690 Euros, while the poverty threshold is 950 euros in France ...
In truth, the liberal universal income is simply a scam to break Social Security and
unemployment. It would no longer be worthwhile to have unemployment benefits if everyone
has a low income that keeps him just below the poverty line. This would also make huge
savings for employers, and would ultimately undermine the social gains ...
This is not the case with the left-wing version of the universal income, moreover, taken
up by Benoît Hamon. It comes in two versions.
The former sees universal income as a wage supplement, but at a decent standard of living
in contrast to liberal universal income or the RSA. Basically, the idea is that when you
work you are paid by a normal salary, and when you do not work, whether you have
contributed or not, you get a guaranteed income that is more or less equal to your salary.
It is defended by the disciples of André Gorz, and it has sometimes been put forward
during assemblies of intermittent and precarious: everyone could work three days, unemploy
eight, and so on and have indemnities Which would be a great improvement over existing
arrangements.
Nevertheless, what seems most important is the idea that the generalization of this system
leads to enormous flexibility and precariousness.
Basically, it would allow employers in general to hire people, to put them in the closet
temporarily when activity is lower and to rehire them when there is much more activity.
This would mean outsourcing wages to the state and the community. The employee does not
lose money, but is at the disposal of the employer. For the boss, he is obliged to pay
wages only when he really needs them. Even more need to pay leave as income is guaranteed
... It also pushes to split, fragmented, etc. forms of employment.
The second method of the guaranteed income would be more " revolutionary ": the
guaranteed income would replace the wage backed by employment. People would or would not
be working, and they would receive an income in monetary form from the state.
Among his followers are the followers of André Gorz, in the 1990s and 2000s, members of
Cargo (Collective Agitation for an optimal Guaranteed Income), who will go to AC !
(Working together against unemployment !).
Read also: Switzerland: Basic income, salary to test , Alternative libertarian,
July-August 2016
Wealth and Work
This change would be based on a rather smoky mutation of capitalism: it would no longer be
labor that would produce value. Indeed, for most liberal but also Marxist economists, what
produces wealth is labor. For Marxists, it is the fact that labor power is a commodity
that allows the capitalist to extract surplus value. This is called exploitation: workers
produce wealth, but only receive a portion of this wealth in the form of wages, the rest
going to the exploiter.
The vision of supporters of basic income
(c) http://revenudebase.info/comprendre-le-revenu-de-base/
For Gorz but also for Cargo holders, value no longer comes from work. For Gorz, cognitive
capitalism means that work is no longer really necessary and that it is a relatively
autonomous sphere, and that the work of industry no longer creates value, and it is the
whole of society in Out of work that would produce wealth.
On the basis of this conception of value, since wealth is no longer based on material but
on the intangible, it would be enough to set up a guaranteed income system that would
somehow abolish capitalism since productive labor No longer exists.
Proponents of basic income or guaranteed income say one simple thing: " There is money in
the boss's fund, just tax ". Nevertheless it is not known how much it would be necessary,
nor if the bosses would really accept. For us, these conceptions, especially that which
sees the guaranteed income replace the wage-earning, are an imaginary reformism, coming
from a left who dreams of a return to the Trente Glorieux with great blows of a magic wand
rather than an abolition of the capitalism. A whole series of thinkers and economists have
a series of measures that propose to come back politically and economically ...
Matt (AL Montpellier)
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Economie-Le-revenu-universel-une-mesure-de-gauche
------------------------------
Message: 3
This depends on which of the two meanings of "libertarian" you have in mind. In the
original 19th century and early 20th century sense of "libertarian", which is still
predominant in a number of non-English-speaking countries, there isn't really any
difference in terms of which segment of political opinion these terms refer to. In this
original sense of "libertarian" the difference is between a positive and a negative
definition. "Anarchism" has a negative definition: opposition to top down hierarchies of
power ("bosses", "rulers") such as the corporations and the state. "Libertarian" refers to
a viewpoint that places great emphasis on positive liberty: controlling your life,
controlling decisions to the extent you are affected by them, self-management over work &
community, and access to the means to develop your potential, and thus your capacity for
self-management.
The other meaning of "libertarian" was concocted in the USA in the 1950s-60s period. It
was designed to be a new name for advocates of classical 19th century extreme
individualist liberalism. What is central to this form of "libertarianism" is limiting the
definition of "liberty" to negative liberty: absence of coercion or restraint. Thus you
can see the distinction between the two "libertarianisms" in how they view the institution
of wage-labor under capitalism.
To the left wing libertarians, the anarchists, being forced to work for employers, being
subject to management power, is a form of oppression because it tramples, disallows, your
self-management, and prevents the realization of the potential of wage-workers who are
stuck in dead-end jobs.
To the right wing libertarians, being forced to work for employers, being commanded by
bosses, is consistent with liberty because no one puts a gun to your head to take a job.
And therefore it isn't coercion. From the anarchist or left-libertarian point of view,
this is a drastically poverty-stricken definition of "liberty."
Anarchists do not necessarily reject "government." As anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin
pointed out, there is a distinction between the state and government. Government consists
of the institutions of governance... making rules, adjudicating disputes, social
self-defense. A state, on the other hand, is a top down bureaucratic apparatus with
command over military & police forces, separate from real control by the mass of the people.
Right wing libertarians are fine with the existence of the state because a state is
necessary to protect the minority capitalist or employing class. Their disagreements with
left-wing liberals and social democrats over the state are about the use of the state to
provide social benefit systems to benefit the masses of ordinary people - unemployment
benefits, minimum wage laws, social security systems, public health insurance, etc. Right
wing libertarians are opposed to these things.
Left wing libertarians advocate systems of provision of social benefits such as free
health care, education, or public transit, but they want these services to be managed
directly by their workers. But left wing libertarians & anarchists are opposed to the
state because of its other side, its use to defend and protect the interests of
dominating, exploiting classes, such as capitalists and bureaucrats.
Leftwing libertarians thus propose to replace the state with systems of direct popular
power based on direct democracy of assemblies in workplaces & neighborhoods & delegate
bodies closely controlled by the base assemblies. Thus we could say they want governance
without the state.
http://blackrosefed.org/difference-between-libertarianism-and-anarchism/
------------------------------
Message: 4
The Tories have found their election slogan. The words ‘strong and stable leadership' will
be stuck on repeat for the next month, but so far there has been something off in the
Tories' delivery of their core message. Theresa May seemingly can't end a sentence without
some form of the words ‘strong and stable leadership'. The compulsion to keep repeating
the mantra betrays an obsession with the words that go beyond the usual parroting of
meaningless sound-bites. The Tories addiction to the slogan feels like an unconscious
over-compensating. They have to say the words constantly because they know that actually
these times are not stable, and they simply can not offer anything, let alone strong
leadership. ---- There was a time when the British political elite were looked upon as a
wise and capable governing class. They have always been arrogant and uncaring of course,
but they seemed to be able to govern in a way which guaranteed remarkable stability and
predictability.
Tradition ruled. Parties alternated in power with barely a day's disruption. Instability
was something that happened in other, foreign, places. Contrast this with the recent past,
where we have seen two referendums on vital strategic state interests, and are now heading
into a second general election in as many years. Instability in the British state seems to
be stemming not so much from the actions of the population below but from the growing
incompetence of the elite itself. One aspect of our times is that the political elite of
the British state are losing their touch. A once poised and self-assured group has become
a series of bumbling caricatures with little sense of direction.
It all started almost a decade ago with the crisis of 2007-8. When the financial industry
crashed the economy it spelled the end of, an admittedly tired, government that had held
power comfortably for ten years. What replaced it was something virtually unknown for the
British state, coalition government. Different factions of parliament had to collaborate
to govern and their first act was to bring down the axe of austerity. Making the poor pay
for the crisis of the financial system naturally drew a response, there was the student
movement, strikes, riots and protests. Even though such events are not uncommon in
Britain, they broke the belief ,held widely both inside and outside the country, that
street politics simply doesn't happen here.
Toward the end of its reign the coalition government almost scored what would have been
one of political history's most spectacular own goals. Massively misjudging a growing
anti-elite sentiment PM Cameron very nearly oversaw the dismemberment of the British state
with the Scottish referendum of 2014. Only some last minute scrambling and cajoling saved
that situation. The following year a decaying Labour party helped the Tories to a surprise
outright majority in the 2015 general election. Commentators were caught off guard by the
swift return to single party government and normal service looked to have been resumed.
However, an even more over confident and arrogant Cameron finally managed that spectacular
own goal he'd narrowly missed in Scotland. There are a lot of things to say about Brexit,
who wanted it and who will gain by it, but a large chunk of the domestic political and
economic elite ,and virtually all the international elites were against it. Clearly it
wasn't actually supposed to happen. The British state wasn't meant to veer away from ever
more integrated capitalist markets, and yet an internal party power play got out of hand
and ended up fundamentally altering the state's strategic direction. Almost on a whim the
British elite have disregarded a key part of the state's foreign policy that has been
adhered to for centuries, don't allow the states of Europe to unite in opposition to it.
In the year since the referendum, the political elite have looked very confused. Lacking
any coherent direction their behaviour is becoming more erratic. The surprise call for
another general election is just one more instinctive reaction to a situation they've
stumbled into. It used to be said, wrongly, that the British Empire was acquired in a fit
of absence of mind, now it seems such an absence of mind is the political elite's approach
to governing.
There was a method and a plan behind the actions of the political elite over the last
years but such is their loss of political skill that it seems only to have led them to a
dead end. Following 2007-8 it was clear to everyone who was responsible for the crisis.
That's why when the coalition tried to use austerity to get the state out of the crisis
capitalism had brought it to there was a response. Yet austerity and anti-austerity long
ago stopped being the main political issue. As elsewhere the political elite protected
their friends, and sometime co-workers, in the City by switching the blame for the crisis
to the poor and immigrants. They were helped along in this process by the consequences of
other errors they had made. Were it not for the disastrous western interventions in places
such as Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan by successive British governments there would not have
been the need for so many people to become refugees in recent years. Here the mistakes
feed into one another with military campaigns creating refugees who then become hate
figures of the right.
Presumably they thought they could stoke xenophobia and racism while keeping it under
control. But the vote for Brexit showed that they have lost control of this beast. There
are good grounds for wishing to leave the European Union, just look at what it has done to
Greece, but the anti-immigration vote was decisive in 2016. Individual business interests
and nostalgic nationalists have their own reasons for leaving the EU, but the majority of
British capitalists want migrant labour to exploit and the City certainly needs access to
the European market. By building up anti-immigrant sentiment to mask the financial crisis
the British elite shot itself in the foot.
So we get to the current moment. A Prime Minister who might or might not support Brexit
(I'd be surprised if even Theresa May herself knows what she believes) is promising to
deliver a hard Brexit to satisfy anti-immigrant feeling, knowing this is damaging to the
interests of the state. The political elite have trapped themselves by their own
manoeuvres. The return to the stability the elite used to enjoy still seems some way off
despite the likelihood of an enhanced Tory majority at the next election. This majority
could help the Prime Minister deal with the compromises ahead but does not guarantee they
can ride out the storm. An anti-immigrant hard Brexit could damage the economy and
undermine the British state in Scotland and Northern Ireland. A compromise with the EU
over freedom of movement will expose the Tories to the very hatred they have been fanning.
The incompetence of the elite is dangerous, perhaps even more dangerous than the times
they are competent. Political elites around the world are finding it difficult to get out
of the various crises that keep coming up. As always the manoeuvres of the elite are a
threat to those they rule. It may well be true that the Tories have done more damage to
the British state than any revolutionary movements have managed in recent times but this
is of no comfort to the people endangered by austerity and racism. For the political elite
their games have no real consequences, even the most disastrous of Prime Minsters will
still live out a luxurious life, and will be roundly cheered by their colleagues. For
everyone else the consequences can be very real.
The only sliver lining to the dark clouds dominating the present moment is the fact that
for increasing numbers of people the status quo is no longer tenable. More and more people
are looking for a way out and there is a general feeling that something has to be done or
has to happen. So far, no one, least of all the political elites, knows what to do and
various different options are being tried. In Greece there has been an attempt to find a
left wing way out of the crisis. This has failed. It did so not only because Syriza had no
plan to overcome the first obstacle, the Troika, but because they were also devoid of any
actual ideas or strategy. Much of the left's response to the crises which gathered pace
after 2007-8 has been limited to a reaction against austerity, and a hope for a return to
the pre-crisis situation. Beyond going back to the pre-2007 world the left seems to have
little new to offer, hence the reason Labour had to look so deep into its ranks and past
to find a leader. This lack of new ideas is why Syriza has done absolutely nothing but
implement the terms of its bailout despite holding state power for more than two years.
Greek police increasing security at the offices of Syriza, after people quickly loose
faith in the party
In Britain and the USA we see an attempt at a right-wing exit from the crisis. The right
too only seeks to go backwards, this time further back to the era of the independent
nation state. Anyone who has so much as glanced at history knows what happened last time
strong independent nation states were the foundation of the international order. We
already see some hints of this returning world. Trump is very enthusiastic to throw around
the full arsenal of the US military even if he sometimes appears to forget which country
exactly he is bombing. So far on the international stage Brexit Britain has only been
something of an embarrassment to itself, with Tory grandees and the right-wing press
trying to stir up a fight with Spain over Gibraltar.
Crises are increasingly common in various forms throughout the western states these days.
Here in Britain the elite are losing their ability to manage the situation. They can only
solve one crisis by creating another. This is likely one more thing that will not change
whatever the outcome of the election on June 8th. There will be no strong and stable
leadership. The system is malfunctioning and so far attempts to reboot it only lead to
further crashes. How to find a way out and escape from under a floundering elite are more
critical questions than any an election could pose.
https://afed.org.uk/system-malfunction/
------------------------------
Home »
» Anarchic update news all over the world - 10.05.2017