Thank you Brian for this statement, more clear than ever - I think you are getting to the root of the problem ‘signalled’ by the gillets jaunes protests.
I have one simple question: What kinds of new institutional forms are required? Or phrased differently, what types of new political design are required for a new political ecology along the lines you describe? bests, Eric > On 9 Dec 2018, at 20:57, Brian Holmes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for these texts, Patrice. Cohn-Bendit's fears of authoritarianism > notwithstanding, it's clear that until the left proposes forms of collective > investment that can respond simultaneously to climate change and to the > predicament of the squeezed lower classes that Guilly describes, all the > front-page news will come from the extreme right -- whether it's their > would-be politicians or their future electors out swinging clubs. I read the > article in The Observer you suggested, but it has nothing to say, it draws no > fresh conclusions from what's happening, it just replumbs the current nadir > of public discourse. That's the international head-in-the-sand standard when > it comes to actually facing this new phase of an ongoing, decade-long crisis. > > That's also true in the US, where amid all the necessary protests against > fascism and racism, there have only been the earliest steps, carried out by > the youngest of protagonists, toward a Green New Deal. The situation in > France shows how urgent this is. No response to climate change is possible > without collective investment, by which I mean big money spent by the > government to employ people while transforming infrastructure. That requires > seriously changing the rules of the neoliberal political economy. Trump has > tried to make such a change with his tariffs, under the mistaken belief that > the private sector can come up with transformative investment. Listen to > that: Trump to his credit has tried, but it's a triple failure. First because > China can just reorient its production away from the US, second because the > MAGA rhetoric is geared ONLY to the declining industrial classes and > therefore causes damaging polarization, and third because it does nothing to > change the obscene accumulation of wealth among the urban upper classes, > which has caused so much of the resentment misdirected at other urban > populations. So Trump and all the neo-authoritarians lining up behind him are > ready to move on failed solutions whose most likely endgame is a state of > even more heightened and nationalisitically enflamed desperation leading to > war. Meanwhile in the face of that, what do the Democrats offer as ideas for > combating inequality and responding to climate change? Strictly nothing, > until the recent proposal of the Green New Deal which is still just a dream > of a few brilliant young representatives, plus the oldest socialist of them > all, Bernie Sanders. Let's take them seriously and start living in the > present. > > Macron became popular as a bulwark against fascism, but he's very clearly > from the entrepreneurial right, he's a 90s neoliberal. One of the first > things he did on coming to power was to abolish the wealth tax ("impot de > solidarite sur la fortune" or ISF). This was levied every year on people with > assets of over 1,300,000 euros. Suppressing it was a flagrant gift to the > rich that took away 6 billion euros of revenue for the state. At the same > time he put a flat tax on capital gains. This and many other of his policies > are simply continuations of financially led globalization, which used > flexible management strategies to ratchet down popular incomes, while > repurposing government as a vehicle for wealth accumulation. There is no way > to wring more out of these income categories in order to finance vague > measures against climate change. The scam is too obvious, the arrogance is > too blatant. Thomas Piketty made some important comments about it in Le Monde > today, which you can read in French here: https://tinyurl.com/yellowvests > <https://tinyurl.com/yellowvests>. I'm gonna translate the end of his article: > > ".. Since the 2008 crisis, and above all since Trump, Brexit and the > explosion of xenophobic parties throughout Europe, the dangers of rising > inequality and the feeling of abandonment among the lower classes have become > a lot more obvious, and many people understand the need for a new social > regulation of capitalism. Under such conditions, serving up another slice for > the richest in 2018 was not so clever. If Macron wants to be the president of > the 2020s and not of the 1990s, he'd better start evolving quick. > > "The worst of it is the terrible fiasco on the climate front. For a carbon > tax to succeed, you have to put all the revenue into social measures > alleviating the ecological transition. The government did exactly the > opposite: of the 4 billion-euro fuel-tax hike in 2018, with 4 billion more > coming up in 2019, he planned on spending barely 10% for alleviating > measures, while the rest amounted to a means of financing the elimination of > the wealth tax and the flat tax on capital gains. If he wants to save his > mandate, Macron must immediately reinstate the wealth tax and use the > proceeds to compensate those hit hardest by the rise in fuel taxes, which > should go back into effect. And if he doesn't do it, that will mean he has > made a choice in favor of an outdated ideology for the rich, at the expense > of the struggle against global warming." > > Macron is Bill Clinton as Parisian chic. The French who voted for him deserve > him, just as we deserve Trump. Historic situations demand novel thinking, > plus the resolve to act on it. This new thinking has to embrace all of > society and address a majority of the people, because they are the ones who > have to make the biggest adaptation. There is no wonder why we do not have > politicians who are up to this. The reality is that there is no coherent > discourse on the role of collective investment in the struggle against > inequality and climate change, not in the papers, not in the universities, > and least of all from the left. Either you have the neoliberal common sense > of business-as-usual, or you have radical anti-authoritarianism. But > business-as-usual means more despair, more resentment and more > authoritarianism, so I am not convinced by the current exclusive focus of the > supposedly radical left on anti-authoritarianism. Without a positive > direction for political-economic change along the lines of a new political > ecology, a movement like the Yellow Vests will clearly evolve toward some > kind of fascism, yes that's true. But the problem is not the fascist essence > of the people in the street. The problem is that the right has only failed > solutions to the current crisis, while the left has no solution whatsoever. > This has to change. > > The phrase "socialism or barbarism" has a meaning. It means that a capitalist > political economy, left to develop on its own inherent principles, leads to > multiple forms of collapse and conflict, social, ecological, cultural, > international etc. But it also means that we have to deal with the > requirements of socialism, which are first and foremost, political steering > of the state such that a majority of people can trust it enough to > participate in collective programs. Who are the people discussing this most > intensely right now? They are scientists who have turned to economists and > sociologists in order to identify and surmount the blockages that keep us > from dealing with climate change. Read the IPCC report. It couples the most > advanced discourses on equity between classes and regions (that is, the best > part of post-68 left discourse) with a call for the sweeping, state-led > transformation of infrastructure. A typical neoliberal proposal like a carbon > tax that might have worked forty years ago, or worse, cap and trade that > would never have worked, is rejected as too little too late. This is echoed > by 350.org <http://350.org/> and all the major climate organizations. It's > embraced by progressive young people who don't want to grow up into social > and ecological hell. They can imagine actually playing roles in a collective > effort to overcome a crisis that is now clearly on the scale of World War II > (which remains "the big one" in the minds of most people). But the whole > thing stops right there. No one outside the climate movement can begin this > discussion. And I am sorry to say there is a reason for that. > > The reason is the substantial continuity between the neoliberal right and > left when it comes to the role of the state. The reason is the stranglehold > of the anarcho-libertarian spectrum on any new political thinking. This has > to go. It doesn't mean abandoning the critique of the state. It means putting > that critique into effect, in order to achieve an organization of society > that can address the obvious threats of social polarization, ecological > collapse and war both civil and international. Trust in a new organization of > society can only be gained by building the best aspects of previous critiques > into new institutional forms. This can be done, it's the task of this > political generation and therefore of all of us. But it has to be done soon > or the outcomes are all too obvious. The sounds of smashing glass and sirens > in the streets of Macron's Paris are the sounds of an inexorable clock that > goes on ticking. Climate change is real. If we continue to do nothing, war > over the consequences is next. Socialism or barbarism is the political > urgency of the present. > > -BH > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 2:49 AM Patrice Riemens <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Aloha, > > Below Guilly's op-ed, links to two other Guardian features worth looking > at, today's The Observer's analysis of the Gillets Jaunes movement, and > a sum-up of the interview with Daniel Cohn-Bendit ("we wanted to oust a > general, they want a general in power") which nicely illustrates the > disarray of ertswhile leftists who've seen 'the Revolution' switching > sides ... in their eyes. > > Enyvej, (i) the gillets jaunes movement will, immo, petter out in the > end, and the soon to come final showdown will not be that of the people, > but that of nature. > > Cheers all the same, p+2D! > > ------------ > > original to: > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/france-is-deeply-fractured-gilets-jeunes-just-a-symptom > > <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/02/france-is-deeply-fractured-gilets-jeunes-just-a-symptom> > > > France is deeply fractured. Gilets jaunes are just a symptom > by Christophe Guilluy, The Guardian/The Observer, Sun 2 Dec 2018. > > The author of a seminal account of French society charts widening > cultural divisions > > > From the 1980s onwards, it was clear there was a price to be paid for > western societies adapting to a new economic model and that price was > sacrificing the European and American working class. No one thought the > fallout would hit the bedrock of the lower-middle class, too. It’s > obvious now, however, that the new model not only weakened the fringes > of the proletariat but society as a whole. > > The paradox is this is not a result of the failure of the globalised > economic model but of its success. In recent decades, the French > economy, like the European and US economies, has continued to create > wealth. We are thus, on average, richer. The problem is at the same time > unemployment, insecurity and poverty have also increased. The central > question, therefore, is not whether a globalised economy is efficient, > but what to do with this model when it fails to create and nurture a > coherent society? > > In France, as in all western countries, we have gone in a few decades > from a system that economically, politically and culturally integrates > the majority into an unequal society that, by creating ever more wealth, > benefits only the already wealthy. > > The change is not down to a conspiracy, a wish to cast aside the poor, > but to a model where employment is increasingly polarised. This comes > with a new social geography: employment and wealth have become more and > more concentrated in the big cities. The deindustrialised regions, rural > areas, small and medium-size towns are less and less dynamic. But it is > in these places – in “peripheral France” (one could also talk of > peripheral America or peripheral Britain) – that many working-class > people live. Thus, for the first time, “workers” no longer live in areas > where employment is created, giving rise to a social and cultural shock. > > 'Workers' no longer live in areas where employment is created, giving > rise to a social and cultural shock > > It is in this France périphérique that the gilets jaunes movement was > born. It is also in these peripheral regions that the western populist > wave has its source. Peripheral America brought Trump to the White > House. Peripheral Italy – mezzogiorno, rural areas and small northern > industrial towns – is the source of its populist wave. This protest is > carried out by the classes who, in days gone by, were once the key > reference point for a political and intellectual world that has > forgotten them. > Advertisement > > So if the hike in the price of fuel triggered the yellow vest movement, > it was not the root cause. The anger runs deeper, the result of an > economic and cultural relegation that began in the 80s. At the same > time, economic and land logics have locked up the elite world. This > confinement is not only geographical but also intellectual. The > globalised metropolises are the new citadels of the 21st century – rich > and unequal, where even the former lower-middle class no longer has a > place. Instead, large global cities work on a dual dynamic: > gentrification and immigration. This is the paradox: the open society > results in a world increasingly closed to the majority of working > people. > > The economic divide between peripheral France and the metropolises > illustrates the separation of an elite and its popular hinterland. > Western elites have gradually forgotten a people they no longer see. The > impact of the gilets jaunes, and their support in public opinion (eight > out of 10 French people approve of their actions), has amazed > politicians, trade unions and academics, as if they have discovered a > new tribe in the Amazon. > France’s ‘gilets jaunes’ leave Macron feeling decidedly off-colour > Read more > > The point, remember, of the gilet jaune is to ensure its wearer is > visible on the road. And whatever the outcome of this conflict, the > gilets jaunes have won in terms of what really counts: the war of > cultural representation. Working-class and lower middle-class people are > visible again and, alongside them, the places where they live. > > Their need in the first instance is to be respected, to no longer be > thought of as “deplorable”. Michael Sandel is right when he points out > the inability of the elites to take the aspirations of the poorest > seriously. These aspirations are simple: the preservation of their > social and cultural capital and work. For this to be successful we must > end the elite “secession” and adapt the political offers of left and > right to their demands. This cultural revolution is a democratic and > societal imperative – no system can remain if it does not integrate the > majority of its poorest citizens. > > Christophe Guilluy is the author of Twilight of the Elites: Prosperity, > Periphery and the Future of France > > > --------- > > The Observer's view: > > https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/09/the-observer-view-on-the-french-protests-observer-editorial > > <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/09/the-observer-view-on-the-french-protests-observer-editorial> > > Cohn-Bendit interview: > > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/08/daniel-cohn-bendit-gilets-jaunes-macron-may-68-paris-student-protest > > <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/08/daniel-cohn-bendit-gilets-jaunes-macron-may-68-paris-student-protest> > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > <http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l> > # archive: http://www.nettime.org <http://www.nettime.org/> contact: > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
