April 18, 2015

Why socialism?

By Albert Einstein. 
First published in Monthly Review Vol 1(1) May 1949. 
Reproduced verbatim in Monthly Review in May 1998 and in Vol 61(1) May 2009, wherefrom it is posted here. 

First we thought to add some underlining to the main points of the article; a careful reading of the text has proved how vain this would be. We suggest the reader too to proceed with outmost attention to their reading: every sentence represents an important reflection, for the most challenging current and future social issues. 



Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

March 08, 2015

Πού το πάνε;



Πολλές φορές, τον τελευταίο μήνα, έχουμε σημειώσει στο «Ριζοσπάστη» ότι η κυβέρνηση κινείται στην κατεύθυνση να «παίξει» το χαρτί της γεωστρατηγικής θέσης της Ελλάδας στην περιοχή της Ν/Α Μεσογείου, μια περιοχή με ανοιχτά μέτωπα ενδοϊμπεριαλιστικών αντιθέσεων και συγκρούσεων (Ουκρανία, Μ. Ανατολή και Β. Αφρική). Στην πραγματικότητα, αποτελεί συνέχιση των στρατηγικών επιλογών του κεφαλαίου που προσπάθησαν να υπηρετήσουν και οι προηγούμενες αστικές κυβερνήσεις.

Οι πληροφορίες κύκλων του υπουργείου Εξωτερικών, που δημοσιεύσαμε χτες, αποδεικνύουν περίτρανα αυτές τις προθέσεις. Η κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ - ΑΝΕΛ επιδιώκει η Ελλάδα να γίνει προκεχωρημένο φυλάκιο των ευρωατλαντικών σχεδιασμών στην περιοχή της Μ. Ανατολής, παίζοντας ταυτόχρονα και το ρόλο του «γεφυροποιού» ανάμεσα στις χώρες της ΕΕ και του ΝΑΤΟ, από τη μια, και της Ρωσίας, από την άλλη, καθώς και σε άλλες διενέξεις (π.χ., Ισραήλ - Παλαιστίνιοι).

Το εγχείρημα, όσο και αν ενδύεται τις διακηρύξεις περί πολυδιάστατης εξωτερικής πολιτικής και περί σταθεροποιητικού ρόλου της Ελλάδας στην περιοχή, στην πραγματικότητα, θα πρέπει να δημιουργεί ανησυχία στο λαό για το τι μέλλει γενέσθαι.
Σημειώνουμε ότι, τις τελευταίες μέρες, ρεπορτάζ και αρθρογραφία σε μια σειρά εφημερίδες αναφέρουν σχέδια για «εαρινή εκστρατεία» με πρωτοβουλία ΗΠΑ, κρατών του ΝΑΤΟ και της ΕΕ με πρόσχημα τη δράση των τζιχαντιστών του «Ισλαμικού Κράτους». Η κυβέρνηση, από την άλλη έχει σηκώσει ψηλά στην ατζέντα της την «προστασία των χριστιανικών πληθυσμών» της Μ. Ανατολής και της Β. Αφρικής, καθώς και της τζιχαντιστικής τρομοκρατίας στην Ευρώπη.

Δε θα ήταν αυθαίρετο να υποθέσουμε ότι η συγκυβέρνηση θα γινόταν αρωγός μιας τέτοιας εκστρατείας, βεβαίως, πάντα για «ανθρωπιστικούς λόγους», «προστασία των χριστιανικών πληθυσμών», «υπεράσπιση της παγκόσμιας πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς» και άλλα πολλά. Προσχήματα, άλλωστε, μπορούν να βρεθούν για τη συμμετοχή σε μια ιμπεριαλιστική επέμβαση. Η συμμετοχή αυτή στους ιμπεριαλιστικούς σχεδιασμούς πλασάρεται ως διαπραγματευτικό ατού στο πλαίσιο της διαπραγμάτευσης που διεξάγει η ελληνική κυβέρνηση με ΕΕ - ΕΚΤ - ΔΝΤ για λογαριασμό του κεφαλαίου, με στόχο τη χαλάρωση της δημοσιονομικής και νομισματικής πολιτικής που θα δώσει τη δυνατότητα στήριξης των καπιταλιστικών επενδύσεων από το κράτος. Οι τελευταίες τουρκικές προκλήσεις στο Αιγαίο, ενθαρρυμένες από τα ΝΑΤΟικά σχέδια περί γκρίζων ζωνών, είναι τροχιοδεικτικά των επικίνδυνων εξελίξεων που προμηνύει η συνέχιση της εμπλοκής στα ιμπεριαλιστικά σχέδια και τους ανταγωνισμούς.

Τα επισημαίνουμε αυτά, γιατί ο λαός θα πρέπει να βρίσκεται σε εγρήγορση.



January 28, 2015

The New Drivers of Europe's Geopolitics

By George Friedman

For the past two weeks, I have focused on the growing fragmentation of Europe. Two weeks ago, the murders in Paris prompted me to write about the fault line between Europe and the Islamic world. Last week, I wrote about the nationalism that is rising in individual European countries after the European Central Bank was forced to allow national banks to participate in quantitative easing so European nations wouldn't be forced to bear the debt of other nations. I am focusing on fragmentation partly because it is happening before our eyes, partly because Stratfor has been forecasting this for a long time and partly because my new book on the fragmentation of Europe — Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe — is being released today.

This is the week to speak of the political and social fragmentation within European nations and its impact on Europe as a whole. The coalition of the Radical Left party, known as Syriza, has scored a major victory in Greece. Now the party is forming a ruling coalition and overwhelming the traditional mainstream parties. It is drawing along other left-wing and right-wing parties that are united only in their resistance to the EU's insistence that austerity is the solution to the ongoing economic crisis that began in 2008.

Two Versions of the Same Tale

The story is well known. The financial crisis of 2008, which began as a mortgage default issue in the United States, created a sovereign debt crisis in Europe. Some European countries were unable to make payment on bonds, and this threatened the European banking system. There had to be some sort of state intervention, but there was a fundamental disagreement about what problem had to be solved. Broadly speaking, there were two narratives.

The German version, and the one that became the conventional view in Europe, is that the sovereign debt crisis is the result of irresponsible social policies in Greece, the country with the greatest debt problem. These troublesome policies included early retirement for government workers, excessive unemployment benefits and so on. Politicians had bought votes by squandering resources on social programs the country couldn't afford, did not rigorously collect taxes and failed to promote hard work and industriousness. Therefore, the crisis that was threatening the banking system was rooted in the irresponsibility of the debtors.

Another version, hardly heard in the early days but far more credible today, is that the crisis is the result of Germany's irresponsibility. Germany, the fourth-largest economy in the world, exports the equivalent of about 50 percent of its gross domestic product because German consumers cannot support its oversized industrial output. The result is that Germany survives on an export surge. For Germany, the European Union — with its free-trade zone, the euro and regulations in Brussels — is a means for maintaining exports. The loans German banks made to countries such as Greece after 2009 were designed to maintain demand for its exports. The Germans knew the debts could not be repaid, but they wanted to kick the can down the road and avoid dealing with the fact that their export addiction could not be maintained.

If you accept the German narrative, then the policies that must be followed are the ones that would force Greece to clean up its act. That means continuing to impose austerity on the Greeks. If the Greek narrative is correct, than the problem is with Germany. To end the crisis, Germany would have to curb its appetite for exports and shift Europe's rules on trade, the valuation of the euro and regulation from Brussels while living within its means. This would mean reducing its exports to the free-trade zone that has an industry incapable of competing with Germany's.

The German narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted, and the Greek version has hardly been heard. I describe what happened when austerity was imposed in Flashpoints:

 But the impact on Greece of government cuts was far greater than expected. Like many European countries, the Greeks ran many economic activities, including medicine and other essential services, through the state, making physicians and other health care professionals government employees. When cuts were made in public sector pay and employment, it deeply affected the professional and middle classes. Over the course of several years, unemployment in Greece rose to over 25 percent. This was higher than unemployment in the United States during the Depression. Some said that Greece's black economy was making up the difference and things weren't that bad. That was true to some extent but not nearly as much as people thought, since the black economy was simply an extension of the rest of the economy, and business was bad everywhere. In fact the situation was worse than it appeared to be, since there were many government workers who were still employed but had had their wages cut drastically, many by as much as two-thirds. The Greek story was repeated in Spain and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in Portugal, southern France and southern Italy. Mediterranean Europe had entered the European Union with the expectation that membership would raise its living standards to the level of northern Europe. The sovereign debt crisis hit them particularly hard because in the free trade zone, this region had found it difficult to develop its economies, as it would have normally. Therefore the first economic crisis devastated them.

 Regardless of which version you believe to be true, there is one thing that is certain: Greece was put in an impossible position when it agreed to a debt repayment plan that its economy could not support. These plans plunged it into a depression it still has not recovered from — and the problems have spread to other parts of Europe.

Seeds of Discontent

There was a deep belief in the European Union and beyond that the nations adhering to Europe's rules would, in due course, recover. Europe's mainstream political parties supported the European Union and its policies, and they were elected and re-elected. There was a general feeling that economic dysfunction would pass. But it is 2015 now, the situation has not gotten better and there are growing movements in many countries that are opposed to continuing with austerity. The sense that Europe is shifting was visible in the European Central Bank's decision last week to ease austerity by increasing liquidity in the system. In my view, this is too little too late; although quantitative easing might work for a recession, Southern Europe is in a depression. This is not merely a word. It means that the infrastructure of businesses that are able to utilize the money has been smashed, and therefore, quantitative easing's impact on unemployment will be limited. It takes a generation to recover from a depression. Interestingly, the European Central Bank excluded Greece from the quantitative easing program, saying the country is far too exposed to debt to allow the risk of its central bank lending.

Virtually every European country has developed growing movements that oppose the European Union and its policies. Most of these are on the right of the political spectrum. This means that in addition to their economic grievances, they want to regain control of their borders to limit immigration. Opposition movements have also emerged from the left — Podemos in Spain, for instance, and of course, Syriza in Greece. The left has the same grievances as the right, save for the racial overtones. But what is important is this: Greece has been seen as the outlier, but it is in fact the leading edge of the European crisis. It was the first to face default, the first to impose austerity, the first to experience the brutal weight that resulted and now it is the first to elect a government that pledges to end austerity. Left or right, these parties are threatening Europe's traditional parties, which the middle and lower class see as being complicit with Germany in creating the austerity regime.

Syriza has moderated its position on the European Union, as parties are wont to moderate during an election. But its position is that it will negotiate a new program of Greek debt repayments to its European lenders, one that will relieve the burden on the Greeks. There is reason to believe that it might succeed. The Germans don't care if Greece pulls out of the euro. Germany is, however, terrified that the political movements that are afoot will end or inhibit Europe's free-trade zone. Right-wing parties' goal of limiting the cross-border movement of workers already represents an open demand for an end to the free-trade zone for labor. But Germany, the export addict, needs the free-trade zone badly.

This is one of the points that people miss. They are concerned that countries will withdraw from the euro. As Hungary showed when the forint's decline put its citizens in danger of defaulting on mortgages, a nation-state has the power to protect its citizens from debt if it wishes to do so. The Greeks, inside or outside the eurozone, can also exercise this power. In addition to being unable to repay their debt structurally, they cannot afford to repay it politically. The parties that supported austerity in Greece were crushed. The mainstream parties in other European countries saw what happened in Greece and are aware of the rising force of Euroskepticism in their own countries. The ability of these parties to comply with these burdens is dependent on the voters, and their political base is dissolving. Rational politicians are not dismissing Syriza as an outrider.

The issue then is not the euro. Instead, the first real issue is the effect of structured or unstructured defaults on the European banking system and how the European Central Bank, committed to not making Germany liable for the debts of other countries, will handle that. The second, and more important, issue is now the future of the free-trade zone. Having open borders seemed like a good idea during prosperous times, but the fear of Islamist terrorism and the fear of Italians competing with Bulgarians for scarce jobs make those open borders less and less likely to endure. And if nations can erect walls for people, then why not erect walls for goods to protect their own industries and jobs? In the long run, protectionism hurts the economy, but Europe is dealing with many people who don't have a long run, have fallen from the professional classes and now worry about how they will feed their families.

For Germany, which depends on free access to Europe's markets to help prop up its export-dependent economy, the loss of the euro would be the loss of a tool for managing trade within and outside the eurozone. But the rise of protectionism in Europe would be a calamity. The German economy would stagger without those exports. From my point of view, the argument about austerity is over. The European Central Bank ended the austerity regime half-heartedly last week, and the Syriza victory sent an earthquake through Europe's political system, although the Eurocratic elite will dismiss it as an outlier. If Europe's defaults — structured or unstructured — surge as a result, the question of the euro becomes an interesting but non-critical issue. What will become the issue, and what is already becoming the issue, is free trade. That is the core of the European concept, and that is the next issue on the agenda as the German narrative loses credibility and the Greek narrative replaces it as the conventional wisdom. It is not hard to imagine the disaster that would ensue if the United States were to export 50 percent of its GDP, and half of it went to Canada and Mexico. A free-trade zone in which the giant pivot is not a net importer can't work. And that is exactly the situation in Europe. Its pivot is Germany, but rather than serving as the engine of growth by being an importer, it became the world's fourth-largest national economy by exporting half its GDP. That can't possibly be sustainable. Possible Seismic Changes Ahead There are then three drivers in Europe now. One is the desire to control borders — nominally to control Islamist terrorists but truthfully to limit the movement of all labor, Muslims included. Second, there is the empowerment of the nation-states in Europe by the European Central Bank, which is making its quantitative easing program run through national banks, which may only buy their own nation's debt. Third, there is the political base, which is dissolving under Europe's feet. The question about Europe now is not whether it can retain its current form, but how radically that form will change. And the most daunting question is whether Europe, unable to maintain its union, will see a return of nationalism and its possible consequences. As I put it in Flashpoints:

The most important question in the world is whether conflict and war have actually been banished or whether this is merely an interlude, a seductive illusion. Europe is the single most prosperous region in the world. Its collective GDP is greater than that of the United States. It touches Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Another series of wars would change not only Europe, but the entire world. 

 To even speak of war in Europe would have been preposterous a few years ago, and to many, it is preposterous today. But Ukraine is very much a part of Europe, as was Yugoslavia. Europeans' confidence that all this is behind them, the sense of European exceptionalism, may well be correct. But as Europe's institutions disintegrate, it is not too early to ask what comes next. History rarely provides the answer you expect — and certainly not the answer you hope for.

January 27, 2015

Ue-Grecia, spunta il patto segreto di novembre rinvio dei rimborsi già concesso ad Atene

L'altra Europa :-)))))


Federico Fubini

Negli anni '30 Franklin Delano Roosevelt prese una decisione che cercò di far passare inosservata fra i suoi elettori: per i debiti della Gran Bretagna verso gli Stati Uniti non c'era fretta, Londra poteva finire di pagare nel 1991. Avanti veloce a novembre scorso e l'Europa strappa una pagina dai libri di storia della Grande depressione e la infila in quella che prima o poi dovrà essere scritta su questi anni. I grandi creditori della Grecia, la Germania e gli altri governi dell'area euro, seguono l'esempio di Roosevelt. Decidono (in silenzio) che Atene può finire di pagare 245 miliardi di debiti tra un po'. Nel 2057.

Non mancano anche altre facilitazioni, in quella decisione del novembre scorso presa con tanta discrezione per non irritare il pubblico tedesco. Fino al 2020 la Grecia non dovrà versare un solo centesimo ai Paesi del club dell'euro, quelli che hanno tenuto il Paese a galla con i loro fondi da quando nel 2009 è emerso che i suoi conti pubblici erano un colossale inganno.
Quanto ai tassi d'interesse, quelli sui 53 miliardi di prestiti concessi ad Atene da ciascun governo del club sono stato ridotti a un livello pari al tasso interbancario a tre mesi più 50 punti: in sostanza, ad oggi, la Grecia paga lo 0,53% annuo.

I tassi sul fondo salva-Stati (Efsf), il grosso del pacchetto finanziario offerto ad Atene, attualmente sono di appena lo 0,21%. I pagamenti all'Efsf da parte della Grecia dovranno iniziare solo nel 2023 e finire appunto fra 42 anni. Le fasi più impegnative arriveranno nel 2032, dal 2034 al 2039 e soprattutto nel 2054. Prima, a partire da subito e fino alla fine di questo decennio, Atene dovrà saldare solo i propri debiti verso il Fondo monetario internazionale.

Se dunque il neo-premier Alexis Tsipras intende ottenere una sforbiciata sugli oneri che il suo governo è chiamato a sostenere, dovrà chiederla ai rappresentanti di Cina, Stati Uniti, Brasile, India, Sudafrica, Cile o Vietnam nell'organismo di Washington.

È anche chiaro chi sarebbe l'uomo teoricamente chiamato a presentare l'eventuale richiesta al consiglio del Fmi: Carlo Cottarelli, ex zar della spending review a Roma, ora direttore della circoscrizione del Fmi che comprende Grecia e Italia e, in anni passati, corresponsabile del piano di prestiti ad Atene in quanto capo del dipartimento fiscale del Fondo monetario quando quel pacchetto venne deliberato.

Nasce così uno degli equivoci più surreali nella tragedia sociale e politica che da anni si consuma dentro e intorno alla Grecia. Ha appena vinto le elezioni un partito cresciuto nei consensi grazie alla richiesta di una revisione del debito verso le nazioni creditrici. Ma a nessuno degli elettori è mai stato spiegato che quella revisione c'era stata due mesi prima del voto. Non lo ha detto la cancelliera Angela Merkel, per non confessare ai contribuenti tedeschi l'ovvia verità che i loro soldi non torneranno a casa molto presto. Non lo hanno ricordato Matteo Renzi da Roma o François Hollande da Parigi, presi senz'altro da altre priorità. Non lo ha fatto neppure Antonis Samaras, il premier greco uscente, perché voleva competere con Tsipras sulla base di una piattaforma molto simile a quella del suo giovane avversario: la richiesta di un taglio al debito. Spiegare che c'era appena stata una revisione su oltre quattro decenni avrebbe complicato e confuso il messaggio.

La vicenda tra debitori e creditori riparte dunque da qui. Quella spalmatura delle scadenze con cancellazione dei pagamenti di questo decennio fa sì che la Germania, al solito, ora sia riluttante a fare di più. In realtà sarebbe possibile: per esempio una riduzione di 0,5% dei tassi sui prestiti bilaterali nei decenni futuri porterebbe un sollievo enorme. Ma come spesso nel gioco degli specchi fra Atene, Bruxelles e Berlino, il fuoco del negoziato non è dove tutti guardano. È altrove, nelle politiche di bilancio dei prossimi mesi.

Se il governo Tsipras accetterà di restare nei programmi della troika, enormi pagamenti dall'Europa lo aspettano fra due mesi: riceverebbe 15 miliardi dall'ultima tranche del piano di assistenza, dai profitti della Bce sui titoli di Stato greci che ha comprato e dalla gestione dei salvataggi delle banche. In contropartita però Bruxelles e Berlino chiedono a Tsipras di impegnarsi a una riduzione del deficit da quasi il 2% del Pil, rinunciando alle promesse di spesa che gli hanno fatto vincere le elezioni. Queste ultime valgono il 7% del Pil, come se l'Italia lanciasse un'espansione di bilancio da 120 miliardi o la Germania da 250 miliardi senza spiegare dove trovano le risorse.

Se Tsipras si piegherà alle pressioni tedesche, rischia di perdere qualunque credibilità di fronte ai greci. Se rifiuta, il suo governo può collassare per mancanza di fondi fra pochi mesi ed essere costretto all'opzione nucleare: l'uscita dall'euro. Un accordo arriverà solo all'ultimo, probabilmente fra cinque o sei mesi. Sempre che a forza di nascondere la verità ai loro elettori, i governi europei non finiscano per perderne completamente il controllo.

January 19, 2015

Ραψωδία Μη

...ἀλλὰ παρεξελάαν, ἐπὶ δ᾿ οὔατ᾿ ἀλεῖψαι ἑταίρων κηρὸν δεψήσας μελιηδέα, μή τις ἀκούσῃ τῶν ἄλλων: ἀτὰρ αὐτὸς ἀκουέμεν αἴ κ᾿ ἐθέλῃσθα, δησάντων σ᾿ ἐν νηὶ θοῇ χεῖράς τε πόδας τε ὀρθὸν ἐν ἱστοπέδῃ, ἐκ δ᾿ αὐτοῦ πείρατ᾿ ἀνήφθω,
ὄφρα κε τερπόμενος ὄπ᾿ ἀκούσῃς Σειρήνοιιν. εἰ δέ κε λίσσηαι ἑτάρους λῦσαί τε κελεύῃς, οἱ δέ σ᾿ ἔτι πλεόνεσσι τότ᾿ ἐν δεσμοῖσι διδέντων. αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν δὴ τάς γε παρὲξ ἐλάσωσιν ἑταῖροι, ἔνθα τοι οὐκέτ᾿ ἔπειτα διηνεκέως ἀγορεύσω, ὁπποτέρη δή τοι ὁδὸς ἔσσεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς θυμῷ βουλεύειν...
 Όπως και σε πολλές από τις εκλογικές αναμετρήσεις των τελευταίων χρόνων, βλέπω πολλά ονόματα αγαπητών και παλιών φίλων, να πλαισιώνουν ή να στηρίζουν το κομμάτι της αριστεράς που συσπειρώνει το ΝΑΡ και η ΑΝΤΑΡΣΥΑ, το νέο σχήμα ΑΝΤΑΡΣΥΑ-ΜΑΡΣ σήμερα. Το πολύ μεγαλύτερο κομμάτι τους, είναι συναγωνιστές με τους οποίους μοιραζόμαστε θεμελιώδεις πολιτικές ιδέες για την ταξική πάλη, την επικινδυνότητα της ιμπεριαλιστικής παραφροσύνης για την ανθρωπότητα και την ιστορική αναγκαιότητα του σοσιαλισμού. Κοινό τους χαρακτηριστικό είναι οτι, σε διαφορετικές στιγμές της πρόσφατης Ιστορίας, οι φίλοι αυτοί εγκατέλειψαν το Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα λόγῳ διαφωνιών με την κάθε φορά εξέλιξη των προσεγγίσεων του κόμματος.
Τις σπάνιες φορές - ας όψεται η ζωή που μας έχει ακροβολίσει στον πλανήτη - που βρίσκομαι με τέτοιους φίλους, συζητάμε με πάθος τούτη ή την άλλη άποψη για τα πολιτικά και ιδεολογικά ζητήματα που εξακολουθούν όλους να μας βασανίζουν. Κάθε φορά μου επιβεβαιώνεται η πρόταση που ως μαθηματικό αστείο μπορεί να διατυπωθεί ως θεώρημα της μη-συμπάγειας της κριτικής στο ΚΚΕ: μπορεί να είναι σωστή σε κάθε επιμέρους, παραμένοντας εσφαλμένη στο σύνολο...
Απευθύνομαι λοιπόν στους φίλους που αντιπολιτεύονται το ΚΚΕ από αυτή τη σκοπιά - ας μην προσδιορίσω τις πολιτικές μικρο-συντεταγμένες της κάθε επιμέρους παρέας - για κάτι που βλέπω νά'ρχεται πάνω τους:

 Αγαπητοί μου φίλοι, παρακολουθήσαμε όλοι από το 2012 μέχρι σήμερα τη διαδικασία «ταχείας ωρίμανσης» του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ ώστε να είναι σε θέση να αναλάβει την κυβερνητική αποστολή που του αναλογεί: μεταφορά του κέντρου αποφάσεων σε ένα αόρατο κογκλάβιο, δημόσιες γεμάτες συμβολική βαρύτητα δηλώσεις φροντίδας των γεωπολιτικών πυλώνων του ελληνικού καπιταλισμού (ΝΑΤΟ-βάσεις-ΕΕ), σειρά από ντηλ ανοιχτής υποστήριξης από το ντόπιο κεφάλαιο, προώθησης από τμήμα των ιμπεριαλιστικών συμφερόντων και ανοχής από τους υπόλοιπους, έμπρακτο σαμποτάζ των κοινωνικών αγώνων, διολίσθηση των διακηρύξεων από τη συνεδριακή του απόφαση στη «Θεσσαλονίκη» κι από κει σε «πέντε πράγματα». Καταλαβαίνετε τι θέλει να πει κάθε όρος της προηγούμενης μακράς πρότασης - μεταξύ μας δε χρειάζονται παραπάνω εξηγήσεις.
Η συζήτηση για το αν ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ θα μπορούσε να έχει γίνει κάτι άλλο από διαχειριστής του καθεστώτος, χωρίς μάλιστα το παραμικρό περιθώριο μεταρρυθμιστικών παροχών στο λαό, και επίδοξος προσωρινός σταθεροποιητής του πολιτικού συστήματος, είναι μεν χρήσιμη και διδακτική, αλλά δεν είναι πιά επείγουσα.
Τώρα, αυτός ο σχηματισμός ετοιμάζεται να κυβερνήσει, πιθανόν και αυτοδύναμα. Τεχνικά, γυρεύει γύρω στα 5000 στελέχη για να συνδιεκπεραιώσουν το έργο αυτό.
Θα απευθυνθούν, λοιπόν,  προσωπικά και σε σας, το κάνουν ήδη, με πολύ ενδιαφέρουσες προτάσεις. «Γιατί να μη δώσουμε τη μάχη και 'από τα μέσα',  διατηρώντας την πολιτική μας αυτονομία, να κατατεθεί πχ μια προοδευτικότερη συνταγματική μεταρρύθμιση, ή μια φιλολαϊκότερη πρόταση για την Παιδεία»; θα φωνάζουν οι Σειρήνες. «Κι αν δεν περάσουν τα σημεία μας, θα έχουμε αποκαλύψει στο λαό πληρέστερα τι πολιτική απάτη είναι δαύτοι», θα συμπληρώνουν. «Θα πολεμήσουμε και την καταρράκωση κάθε ιδέας που ορίζεται ως αριστερή, θα πάρουμε και πέντε φράγκα που μας καίει για τη δύσκολη προσωπική μας κατάσταση», θα προβληματίζονται οι ελαστικότερες συνειδήσεις.
Η πραγματικότητα που πρέπει να τολμήσετε να αντιμετωπίσετε είναι οτι το ρυμουλκό έχει ήδη δέσει, και σας τραβάει γλυκά, με την επίβλεψη του reconverti Αλαβάνου, της contre-vertie Βαλαβάνη κτλ, σε άλλα νερά.
Το να μείνετε στην καθαρότητά σας των μεταβατικών προγραμμάτων και της «ενότητας» που σας απομονώνει από την αριστερά (δυό λεξούλες για το τι είναι αριστερά: κατά του ΝΑΤΟ, της ΕΕ, των μονοπωλίων, ας αφήσουμε τα άλλα γι αργότερα) δεν βοηθάει.
Αντίθετα η στήριξη του ΚΚΕ είναι μια πράξη αυτοδέσμευσης που δυσκολεύει μια τέτοια εξέλιξη.

Καλείσθε λοιπόν στο κατάρτι, φίλοι και συναγωνιστές. Δεθείτε, σήμερα.




January 09, 2015

The World Federation of Trade Unions for the murderous recent attacks in France


After the murderous attack at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris – France, the WFTU Secretariat issued the following statement.
“We express our condolences to the victims’ families and wishes for quick and full recovery for the injured.
This ferocious crime and the murder of so many people should help us all to consider some current realities:

1. That the religious fanaticisms, the technical divisions, the racist and neo-fascist phenomena create hate and impede the unity of workers.

2. The workers in France, the workers throughout Europe must be wondering who created the so-called ‘jihadists’. Who funded them? Who trained them? Who took full use of them in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon and elsewhere?

3. The imperialists, the European Union, the United States, the NATO, in their geostrategic plans for the control of energy, for new frontiers and new markets, create artificial divisions, sowing among people hate and cultivate religious fanaticisms.

Our brothers, French workers, workers in every corner of the world,
The best way to express our conviction of the crime against “Charlie Hebdo” is not to allow ourselves to be divided by religious, racial, color, language etc. differences. Not to allow the physical and moral guilty of the crime to be hidden behind religious divisions.
The workers are all brothers. We belong to the same class, the working class.
Together united to fight against imperialism and against capitalist barbarism.
Workers around the world either are Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or Copts either are believers or not, WE ARE CLASS BROTHERS.

09/01/2015