Yanis Varoufakis's Blog, page 72

Brexit, Καταλωνία, οι εξελίξεις στα Βαλκάνια και το… ΔΝΤ – στον Real FM

Ο Γραμματέας του ΜέΡΑ25, Γιάνης Βαρουφάκης, καλεσμένος στον RealFM και τον Νίκο Χατζηνικολάου.

Το επίκαιρο ΟΧΙ και η σωφροσύνη του λαού μας – μήνυμα του Γραμματέα του ΜέΡΑ25

Η γιορτή του ΟΧΙ αυτή την 28η Οκτωβρίου, όπως και κάθε 28η Οκτωβρίου των τελευταίων ετών, είναι μέρα ανάσας και ανάτασης για τον ελληνικό λαό.
Η γιορτή του ΟΧΙ είναι, παράλληλα, μια δύσκολη μέρα για το Μνημονιακό Τόξο που προσπαθεί, χρόνια τώρα, να επιβληθεί σ΄ένα γενναίο λαό ο οποίος, ξανά και ξανά, αποδεικνύει ότι γνωρίζει καλά μια Μεγάλη Αλήθεια:


Περιπέτεια δεν είναι το ΟΧΙ στους ξένους κατακτητές και τους ντόπιους αντιπρόσωπούς τους, όσο ισχυροί κι αν είναι


Περιπέτεια είναι το ΝΑΙ ΣΕ ΟΛΑ κι η συνθηκολόγηση σε εκείνα που σκοτώνουν την αξιοπρέπεια, καταργούν την ελευθερία και ερημοποιούν τη χώρα.


Αριστεροί, κεντρώοι και δεξιοί, ο λαός μας σύσσωμος, δεν έτρεφαν αυταπάτες την 28η Οκτωβρίου του 1940 όταν βροντοφώναξαν ΟΧΙ στον εξ ευρωπαϊκού Βορρά ορμώμενο φασισμό. Γνώριζαν καλά ότι τα ιταλικά και γερμανικά στρατεύματα είχαν υπεροπλία και, εν τέλει, θα πέρναγαν.
Ο λόγος που γιορτάζουμε το ΟΧΙ κάθε 28η Οκτωβρίου είναι ακριβώς αυτός:


Σηματοδοτεί το μεγαλείο ενός λαού που μπορεί να πει ΟΧΙ εκεί που πρέπει να πει ΟΧΙ ανεξάρτητα του αποτελέσματος, ακόμα κι όταν ξέρει ότι ο εχθρός είναι σιδηρόφρακτος


Τιμούμε τον σοφό λαό που διαχρονικά συναισθάνεται πως η επιβίωση και η ευημερία του δεν εξυπηρετείται από τον ραγιαδισμό και την συνθηκολόγηση με ανόητους, προκλητικούς και αδίστακτους κατακτητές.


Αυτό το μεγαλείο, αυτή την σοφία του ελληνικού λαού, το Μνημονιακό Τόξο πασχίζει να την δαιμονοποιήσει, να την εξισώσει με αμετροέπεια, αλαζονεία, αντι-ευρωπαϊσμό, ανοησία.
Δεν τα καταφέρνει βέβαια. Ιδίως την 28η Οκτωβρίου και την 25η Mαρτίου – μέρες που η συλλογική μνήμη θυμίζει σε όλες και όλους που αγαπούν αυτόν τον τόπο πως:


ο μόνος τρόπος να υπηρετήσουμε την πατρίδα


ο μόνος τρόπος να είμαστε πραγματικοί Ευρωπαίοι,


είναι με την αντίστασή μας στους ισχυρούς που πλήττουν τον Ελληνισμό και μετατρέπουν την Ευρώπη σε σιδερένιο κλουβί.

 

A New Financial Order | Aaron Bastani Meets Yanis Varoufakis

O στόχος του Αναπτυξιακού Νόμου της κυβέρνησης; Η ραγδαία Ανάπτυξη της Υποανάπτυξης

 

Ο «Αναπτυξιακός» Νόμος της κυβέρνησης της ΝΔ δεν είναι απλά αναποτελεσματικός, ή αντι-αναπτυξιακός, όπως λένε άλλα αντιπολιτευόμενα κόμματα. Μακάρι να ήταν μόνο αυτό. Όχι, ο «Αναπτυξιακός» Νόμος της κυβέρνησης της ΝΔ είναι, πράγματι, αναπτυξιακός. Βοηθά και προωθεί με ζηλευτή ισχύ την Ανάπτυξη της… Υποανάπτυξης.
Δεν είναι το ίδιο πράγμα ένα αναποτελεσματικό σχέδιο ανάπτυξης με ένα σχέδιο το οποίο αποτελεσματικά αναπτύσσει την… Υποανάπτυξη.
Πως μπορεί να αναπτύσσεται η Υποανάπτυξη; Τί σημαίνει να αναπτύσσεται η Υποανάπτυξη;
Το ΜέΡΑ25 απαντά ξεκινώντας με ερώτημα που μας θέτουν τα κόμματα του Μνημονιακού Δικομματισμού (ΝΔ-ΣΥΡΙΖΑ):
«Εσείς του ΜέΡΑ25», μας ρωτούν «γιατί λέτε όχι σε όλα; Στην επένδυση στο Ελληνικό, στις εξορύξεις, στον τζόγο κλπ. Μα αυτές οι επενδύσεις δεν θα φέρουν χρήμα και θέσεις εργασίας σε έναν τόπο που έχει μεγάλη ανάγκη να κινηθεί η οικονομία;»
Απαντάμε: Και βέβαια θα δημιουργηθούν κάποιες θέσεις εργασίας. Και βέβαια θα αυξηθεί σε κάποιο βαθμό το ΑΕΠ. Ποιανού ΑΕΠ όμως θα αυξηθεί; Και με τί κόστος;

Το ΑΕΠ των φίλων και πατρόνων σας θα αυξηθεί, τους απαντάμε. Αλλά θα αυξηθεί εις βάρος της πλειοψηφίας που θα ζει σε μια χώρα που όλο και βυθίζεται στην υπο-ανάπτυξη – σε μια χώρα ανύπαρκτων επενδύσεων σε καλές θέσεις εργασίας – σε μια χώρα όπου, όπως είπε στη Βουλή ο Κρίττων Αρσένης, συγκεκριμένες οικογένειες, ελέω του Αναπτυξιακού Νόμου της ΝΔ μπορούν πλέον «…να κατασκευάζουν… χωρίς περιβαλλοντικές άδειες, να αγοράζουν κανάλια ανώνυμα, να κτίζουν πάνω στα αρχαία, να κτίζουν ουρανοξύστες παντού, να απασχολούν εργαζομένους χωρίς συλλογικές συμβάσεις, να έχουν ιδιωτικούς δήμους και άπλετο ηλεκτρονικό τζόγο.»


Ανάπτυξη για τους λίγους


Αναπτυσσόμενη Υποανάπτυξη για τους πολλούς


Κι όλα αυτά σε περιβάλλον Χρεοδουλοπαροικίας που στέλνει όλο και περισσότερα από τα παιδιά μας στο εξωτερικό.


Αυτό το δυστοπικό μέλλον σχεδιάζει η κυβέρνηση και ψηφίζει σήμερα στη Βουλή η συμπολίτευση. Δεν πρόκειται για αστοχία σας αλλά, όπως είπε στη Βουλή η Σοφία Σακοράφα, αποτελεί σκοπιμότητα εκ μέρους σας.

Κι αν δεν εμπεδώσατε Κυρίες και Κύριοι του Μνημονιακού Τόξου πως μπορεί να αναπτύσσεται η Υποανάπτυξη, επιτρέψτε μας να σας θυμίσουμε γιατί.
Το ΑΕΠ αυξάνεται όταν:


Τα δάση καίγονται αλλά η κατανάλωση κηροζίνης των πυροσβεστικών αεροπλάνων προστίθεται στο εθνικό εισόδημα (χωρίς να αφαιρείται η αξία του δάσους που τιμή δεν έχει)


Χτίζουμε φυλακές και ΧΟΤ ΣΠΟΤΣ


Τσιμεντοποιούμε τις παραλίες μας


Τα ΜΑΤ ρίχνουν δακρυγόνα ή η μαφία αγοράζει όπλα και πυρομαχικά


Μειώνουμε την ποιότητα της μόρφωσης αλλά αυξάνουμε τον αριθμό των φροντιστηρίων


Ξεχνάμε την ποίηση ενός Καβάφη, ενός Ρίτσου, ενός Σεφέρη αλλά κλικάρουμε άλλη μια διαφήμιση στο Facebook


Πολιτικοί παίρνουν μίζα από πολυεθνική ώστε το ΕΣΥ να αγοράζει ακριβότερο φάρμακο


Κυρίες και κύριοι της Συμπολίτευσης και εν γένει του Μνημονιακού Δικομματισμού, οι αριθμοί που μετρούν τις προσόδους της ολιγαρχίας που εκπροσωπείτε μπορούν να μας πουν τα πάντα για την Ελλάδα μας, με εξαίρεση:


Όλα εκείνα που μπορούν να φέρουν πραγματική ανάπτυξη των αξιών και των ποιοτήτων


Όλα εκείνα που θα βοηθήσουν τη χώρα να μην χάσει και την Πράσινη Βιομηχανική Επανάσταση


Όλα όσα μπορούν να μας βοηθήσουν να αποδράσουμε από το οικονομικό μοντέλο που βασίζεται στην ΕΚΜΕΤΑΛΛΕΥΣΗ ανθρώπων και περιβάλλοντος


Όλα εκείνα που απαιτούνται για να περάσουμε στη ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΙΑ αξιών και Κοινής Ευημερίας.


Πάρτε το απόφαση Κυρίες και κύριοι της Συμπολίτευσης και εν γένει του Μνημονιακού Δικομματισμού:
Στην Χρεοδουλοπαροικία μας, οι δεσμοί που κάποτε ίσως συνέδεαν την σκληρή δουλειά με την ελπίδα για απόδραση από την φτώχεια και την υπο-ανάπτυξη έχουν σπάσει.
Ο Όνεριν Μπέβαν, από τους ιδρυτές του μεταπολεμικού κράτους πρόνοιας στη Βρετανία, είχε κάποτε πει πως το μέγα ερώτημα για εμάς που ζούμε στον καπιταλισμό είναι πως τα καταφέρνει ο Πλούτος να πείσει την Φτώχεια να χρησιμοποιεί την πολιτική της Ελευθερία για να κρατά τον Πλούτο στην Εξουσία.
Ο Αναπτυξιακός Νόμος της κυβέρνησης του κ. Μητσοτάκη, παραφράζοντας τον Μπέβαν, έχει αντίστοιχο στόχο: Να καταφέρει η πιο παρασιτική Ολιγαρχία να πείσει τα Θύματά της να χρησιμοποιούν την πολιτική τους ελευθερία για να κρατούν την πιο παρασιτική Ολιγαρχία στην Εξουσία.
Το ΜέΡΑ25 θα είναι εδώ για να εμποδίσει την Ανάπτυξη της Υποανάπτυξης, το πιο πρόσφατο κεφάλαιο της Χρεοδουλοπαροικίας μας.

“El ‘establishment’ y la ultraderecha se necesitan” – El Mundo

Costa Gavras adapta al cine su libro autobiográfico en la película ‘Comportarse como adultos’ que se estrena el viernes.
Yanis Varoufakis es el autor del libro en el que se basa la última película de Costa-Gavras. SANTI COGOLLUDO


Yanis Varoufakis (Falero, 1961) es de los pocos ex ministros de finanzas (con o sin moto) que puede presumir de haber inspirado una película. Es más, el actor Christos Loulis hace de él. Con moto. Costa-Gavras dirige Comportarse como adultos, que se estrena hoy, y ahí aparece retratada la crisis de 2015 en la que el país heleno a punto estuvo de quedarse fuera de algo más que sólo Europa.

P. Actualidad obliga, ¿qué piensa de lo que ocurre en Barcelona?

R. La sentencia no ha hecho más que ratificarme en lo que creo. Como griego y como europeo, no tengo nada que decir sobre la independencia, eso es algo que le corresponde decidir al pueblo de Cataluña exclusivamente. Lo que sí creo es que es inadmisible que haya políticos encarcelados en España. Se trata de políticos cuyo único delito es haber defendido libremente un proyecto político.

P. La condena es por haber cometido un delito, sedición, según la ley vigente…

R. Entonces lo que hay que hacer es cambiar la ley o la Constitución. Cualquier Constitución que justifica el encarcelamiento de ciudadanos o políticos por llevar a cabo una campaña para votar merece ser abolida inmediatamente. Es injustificable…

P. Ya con la película delante, considera que Comportarse como adultos es una enmienda a la totalidad a Europa…

R. En absoluto, quiero dejar muy claro que ni yo ni Costa-Gavras somos euroescépticos. Al revés. Los dos nos consideramos ardientes europeístas. Cuando me he enfrentado al resto de los ministros de finanzas en la Unión Europea, incluido a mi amigo Luis de Guidos, no me enfrentaba a Europa sino a su forma de hacer política y unas políticas económicas que sólo pueden ser denominadas como idiotas. No es que vayan en contra de la gente, que también, sino que no conducen a ningún lado con su idea de ahogar al país que intentan rescatar.

P. Costa-Gavras habla de la necesidad de otras lecturas…

R. Ése es precisamente el punto. Asistimos a dos narrativas en conflicto. Una viene de Bruselas y considera a Europa como una gran e inmejorable empresa con pequeños problemas aquí y allá. Y la otra es la de los euroescépticos como Marine Le Pen, Salvini, los partidarios del Brexit en Gran Bretaña y hasta Vox en España que básicamente ven en la Unión Europea el chivo expiatorio de todos los males. Es Mefistófeles. Pero la verdad es que ninguna de esas dos lecturas tiene nada que ver con la realidad. La Unión Europea es, de momento, sólo una aspiración.

P. Vamos que en su opinión ni existe siquiera…

R. En efecto. Es sólo una idea y, lo peor, es que nos estamos alejando de ella. Lo curioso es que el ‘establishment’ de Bruselas y los escépticos de la extrema derecha son amigos, se necesitan uno a otro para mantener sus posiciones.

P. No entiendo…

R. Mire el caso de Macron en Francia. Él nunca ha ganado de forma clara unas elecciones. En la segunda vuelta, le hizo presidente de la República el miedo a Le Pen. Uno necesita al otro. Jean-Clude Juncker y Angela Merkel viven y se mantienen bajo la amenaza de que si no estuvieran ellos, su puesto lo ocuparía Matteo Salvini. No se vota por un proyecto, se vota contra el proyecto de los otros. El fascismo necesita del ‘establishment’ y éste sin el fasntasma del fascismo no existiría.

P. No me queda claro si es una iluminación o una provocación…

R. En absoluto. Le pondré otro ejemplo. Las políticas de austeridad hacen crecer la rabia, la ira y, evidentemente, la extrema derecha. ¿A quién votaría usted entonces para evitar a Vox, por ejemplo? Pues precisamente a los que mantienen esas políticas. Es así de absurdo. No se oponen, son socios.

P. Y entonces llega la izquierda y es incapaz de ponerse de acuerdo como ha pasado en España… Gavras dice que al contrario que la derecha, la izquierda nunca sabe exactamente lo que quiere.

R. Sí, es así. Históricamente, la gente que quiere cambiar las cosas tiene problemas de organizarse. Mire el caso incluso de la Iglesia a lo largo de los siglos. En lo que respecta a España, mi crítica a Podemos es que nunca han desarrollado una estrategia sobre Europa. ¿Qué harían con el Banco Central Europeo? ¿Qué haría un hipotético ministro de finanzas? ¿Qué políticas europeas proponen? Nadie dice nada. Es un partido que me resulta provinciano, muy miope. Y su alianza con Tsipras fue un desastre después de su capitulación.

P. ¿Y el PSOE?

R. Su postura es la un partido más del ‘establishment’.

P. ¿Qué relación mantiene con la etiqueta de populismo?

R. El populismo en Europa es siempre de derecha. Hay un empeño por hablar de populismo de izquierda y de derechas como dos aspectos de lo mismo. Quizá en Iberoamérica es así, pero en Europa no. Aquí, el populismo se significa por proponer soluciones simplistas a graves problemas que traen consigo desesperación, rabia o pobreza. Y de ahí viene el nacionalismo, la xenofobia… Y eso es terreno abonado para la extrema derecha tanto en los años 30 como ahora mismo. La izquierda es por definición internacionalista y eso la vacuna contra el nacionalismo. Ser de izquierdas y nacionalista es un contrasentido.

P. Toca hablar del Brexit.

R. He estado recientemente en toda Gran Bretaña. En Irlanda, Escocia, Inglaterra… Lo único que tengo que decir es que hubo un referéndum y se perdió. No soy de los que dicen que fue un error votar. Nunca es un error votar. No creo que se deba votar otra vez. Creo que lo más sensato es respetar la voluntad popular a la vez que se minimiza el coste del Brexit tanto para Europa como para los propios británicos.

P. ¿Cómo se imagina la solución a este nudo imposible?

R. Le contaré cuál es mi sueño. Lo ideal es que el Reino Unido se vaya formalmente, pero que no abandone ni el mercado único ni la unión de fronteras. Y que en cinco o seis años, cuando hayamos democratizado Europa realmente, entonces regrese.

P. ¿Cree que Grecia sigue bajo una sentencia de muerte, como declaró tiempo atrás?

R. No creo haber usado una expresión tan dura. Hablé de prisión. La historia de mi país es la de un país canibalizado por la oligarquía interna y externa. Y eso sigue siendo así.

P. ¿Mantiene alguna relación con Tsipras?

R. El Tsipras que yo conocí ya no existe. Tengo la impresión de haber asistido con él a una película de ciencia-ficción en la que un ser humano es invadido por un extraterrestre. Parece el mismo, pero no es la misma persona.

P. Y la última: ¿qué impresión le hace verse interpretado por un actor? ¿alimenta al narcisista que vive dentro de usted?

R. En absoluto. Vivo bien conmigo mismo porque no me reconozco en lo que dicen de mí. En cuanto adquieres una relevancia pública, todo el mundo cree saber cómo eres, qué piensas… Y te das cuenta pronto de que eso es incontrolable.

https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/...

Caroline Lucas & Yanis Varoufakis search for what went wrong with democracy – THE BIG ISSUE

The Green Party MP and the MeRA25 leader journey from democracy’s inception through the tumultuous Brexit period and through to the year 2035
There’s chaos on the streets of Westminster as the activists of Extinction Rebellion bring traffic to a standstill to highlight the urgency of action on the climate crisis. If the old democracy is not working, perhaps new ways of making ourselves heard are required.
As the only Green Party MP in Westminster, Caroline Lucas knows all about this struggle, while economist and politician Yanis Varoufakis is fighting for new ways of doing economics and politics in Greece and beyond, especially since MeRA25, the progressive pan-European party he founded, entered Parliament in July. Here’s what happened when the two came together to talk democracy – from its inception right through to the year 2035.

Caroline Lucas: So how are you?

Yanis Varoufakis: I’m OK. It is not just Brexit destroying the soul. But we are now in Parliament, so it is very liberating to have our own party and not depend on unreliable comrades. There are nine of us and today we have a sitting that will continue until after midnight. You know how it is…

CL: You have got the bad habits from Britain. But I am so jealous of there being nine of you. I would give anything for eight colleagues. So this issue is dedicated to the subject of democracy…

YV: Let’s start!

CL: Your country is seen as the birthplace of democracy. In your opinion has there ever been a really good democracy we can look at and say, ‘That was when it was working well’?

YV: Democracy is always unfinished business. It is imperfect by design, especially in societies with vested interests vying for domination. But the merits of studying ancient Athenian democracy, which only lasted a few decades, is that it was the first and last time the poor controlled the government. Which is, interestingly, Aristotle’s definition of democracy. It was a remarkably radical idea that control over the instruments of the state should be independent of wealth.

CL: How did it work?

YV: Back in the times of the grand debates at the Pnyx, which was the parliamentary space in ancient Athens, there were two opposing parties: the Aristocrats and the Democrats. The Aristocrats hated democracy with a passion – but all the great philosophers we now eulogise like Aristotle and Plato were on the side of the Aristocrats. Nevertheless, the Aristocrats, who hated democracy, supported elections. And the Democrats did not.

CL: That sounds very paradoxical.

YV: The argument was that the Aristocrats could afford to buy influence in an election, so elections were an enemy of democracy. Democrats supported a lottery – sortition, as it is called today. Every official position in Athenian democracy was elected by lottery, including judges. Their terms were confined to six months. The only posts not sorted by lottery were the general, who had to know how to conduct a war, and bankers. The officials responsible for minting the money and for quality control of products like wine were slaves. Why? Because citizens had the right not to be beaten. Slaves did not. The idea was that bankers had to fear that they would be beaten up if they messed up the finances of the city. I think this is a splendid proposal for the City of London!

CL: That would certainly shake things up! And it’s so interesting. In terms of learning from that for today, are powerful corporations the new aristocracy?

YV: The corporations, the media moguls who effectively control public opinion, the equity and pension funds that own the corporations – that is the grid of aristocratic power. And the pertinence of the Athenian idea is evident when we look at ways progressives are thinking about breaking the stranglehold over power by these groups. At DiEM25 [Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 , founded in 2016 in Berlin, with Caroline’s participation] we have been talking about citizens’ assemblies – not to replace Parliament, but to function side by side with it. In Ireland with the abortion issue this process broke that deadlock and allowed Parliament to free itself from years of impasse. The Brexit process is never going to go away. The only way to unite the country is through citizens’ assemblies becoming part of national politics, local politics and party structures. In DiEM25, we have a coordinating committee but when decisions are controversial, a validating council of 50 men and 50 women chosen as a jury at random from our members have the final word. So many disputes have been resolved that way. It frees up the coordinating committee when we know there is this backstop of randomly chosen democratic opinion. Parliament needs that.

CL: If someone said, ‘Doesn’t that undermine the influence of Parliament?’ – would you just say that is the point, you need to check its power?

YV: I would make a more radical claim. I think it enhances the legitimacy of Parliament. A citizens’ assembly offering checks and balances means Parliament’s importance in expressing the views of the British people is enhanced. The British Parliament has never been less sovereign than today.

CL: Very true. On the issue of Brexit – to what extent would you describe it as a reflection of a crisis in democracy? To my mind, the vote revealed, in the anger it engendered, that there was already a crisis before that vote.

YV: It was a crisis created by neo-liberalism and a crisis of neo-liberalism. There was always a Eurosceptic streak in Britain, with good reason. From an economic point of view, the British capitalist model has always been different from the continental model. In Britain, capitalism spontaneously emerged in opposition to the aristocracy – and the aristocracy decided if you can’t beat them, join them. In Germany, capitalism came later and was a state enterprise. The rest of Europe followed the German model so they were always at odds. But Brexit won in 2016 because the referendum gave an opportunity to express anger at being disenfranchised by Thatcherism as well as the Brussels establishment’s evident dislike of democracy. If the question was ‘Do you like the idea of pink pavements as opposed to grey pavements?’, they would have voted for pink pavements if they thought that would upset David Cameron, Tony Blair, the Treasury, the IMF, et cetera.

CL: I agree. It felt as if the unfair, unrepresentative, first-past-the-post electoral system we have in this country did not allow the anger about the hollowing out of the economy to be expressed before. A referendum, where people’s votes count in a much more direct way, in a sense took the lid off that boiling pot. People were so angry that successive governments could ignore the vast majority of people.

YV: I agree. When you have a society torn apart by austerity and the globalisers treating the majority of people as cattle whose price has tanked – who they don’t care about or fear – there is going to be a backlash, just like in the 1930s where it favoured fascists, xenophobes and racists. But even if you didn’t have the referendum I think you would have similar problems. Look at Trump’s America. Even though Jeremy [Corbyn] and John [McDonnell] are our great friends, we keep saying it is preposterous for Labour to remain committed to first past the post. If a government is granted an absolute majority when they only received 30 per cent of the vote, you end up with a complete disconnect between public opinion and the House.

CL: I could not agree more. At the last election 68 per cent of votes didn’t make any impact on the outcome – they just stacked up in constituencies where sufficient votes had already been cast to get the winner over the line. It turns people off the idea of even voting – why bother when the system feels so stacked against you? One of DiEM’s straplines is that Europe will be democratised or it will disintegrate. Will the Brexit convulsions spread across the EU as anger spreads against a top-down Europe not responding to people’s needs?

YV: It is more nuanced. Brexit is the most obvious form of disintegration. But if you fly to Rome and drive up to Munich, at the border between Italy and Austria you probably wait for an hour. There is a border where there wasn’t one a few years ago. To cross into Germany you will get stuck in another queue. That is disintegration. At Schengen, we celebrated doing away with all the borders – and now they are back. That is a major event that nobody talks about. My fear is not that others will leave – they will probably learn the lesson from this dog’s Brexit and stay. But if we keep allowing the EU to fragment, at some point it will make no difference if you are in or out.

CL: You are working on a new book called The Shaken Superflux. One question is, what on earth is that? The second is that it imagines our future in 2035 – what does it look like?

YV: I have changed the title. It was too snobbish, too Shakespearian! Now it is called Another Now: Dispatches From An Alternative Present. My previous book was Talking To My Daughter about the Economy, which was my analysis for my daughter.

CL: It was brilliant. It was your analysis for me as well, so thank you.

YV: This is a sequel. One criticism that really struck is that I was explaining why capitalism sucks, but what is the alternative? This is the nightmare question progressives try to avoid. I am pushing 60 and decided I can’t avoid it any more. So it is my attempt to describe how, not in a Star Trek world, but with today’s technology, we could have an alternative system. It is a mind-boggling exercise. So I use a narrative strategy: I tell the story from the perspective of 2035 and the author – not me – is recounting events. By the way, it all happens in Brighton. I wanted a seaside location.

CL: Can I have a cameo role please?!

YV: Ha! The idea is that the financial crisis in 2008 was so earth-shattering that the timeline bifurcated. It split up. You and I today live in one trajectory, but there was another one. And a socialist technologist in San Francisco gains access to the other trajectory. So he finds out that instead of the silly Occupy Wall Street movement, in 2009 there was a very serious techno-ecological rebellion around the world that harnessed the anger about the events of 2008 and changed corporate law, changed democracy, changed citizenship and so on.

CL: Anything we haven’t covered?

YV: I make a distinction between optimism and hope. I am not optimistic. I see no evidence of anything good happening. But I am latching on to hope without optimism. The way youngsters are taking it upon themselves to strike and protest is wonderful. But to prevent this energy from fizzling out, like the World Social Forum and the anti-globalisation movements did, we need programmatic converge and we need to activate citizens’ assemblies everywhere – that is where I am putting all my efforts.

Conversation recorded by Adrian Lobb

Original BIG ISSUE site here

Progressive Internationalism & why a Corbyn government is the only cure for a terrible Brexit – openDemocracy video interview

At this year’s The World Transformed, we caught up with some of the key figures in the movement for a new economy and politics. In the grand finale of our exclusive series, Yanis Varoufakis speaks to ourEconomy about Brexit, the coming UK general election, a constitutional assembly for Britain, and his agenda of a new Bretton Woods, public investment banks and a universal basic dividend. With huge thanks to Erik Ros who shot and cut the videos, Freddie Stuart, and the whole TWT comms team who let us use their studio.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oure...

With a recession on its way, it is time we demanded an International Green New Deal

Last April, again in The Guardian, David Adler and I called for a particular Green New Deal to be implemented internationally. Now that a new recession is ante portas, we are renewing this call, suggesting that we cannot afford yet another ‘good’ economic crisis to go to waste. Our latest piece in The Guardian follows:
Brexit, Trump’s trade wars, the crisis of our democracies, the failure to address climate change – almost every newsflash that saddens or enrages us emanates from the never-ending crisis that erupted in 2008. We felt it as a financial crash but its causes, and repercussions, ran much deeper: it was, and remains, a systemic rupture that cuts across our social fabric, our workplaces, our ecosystems.
With their banks disintegrating, in 2008 the bankers found the courage to seize the day. Enlisting central banks and governments to re-float their sunk vessels, they doubled down on a disastrous high-finance, low-real-investment model — and doubled up their net worth in the process.
Never before has so much idle cash accumulated as in the past decade. And never before has circulating capital failed so miserably to be invested in the things humanity needs, e.g. decent jobs and the green transition. It is high time we seize the day too, with a Green New Deal that matches existing resources to pressing needs at a planetary scale.
Back in 2008, commentators were quick to announce the death of financialised capitalism. Even Alan Greenspan, the libertarian Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was trotted out in front of Congress to apologise for his faith in self-regulating financial markets. As activists occupied town squares from Oakland to Madrid, and Wall Street bankers expressed an unprecedented sense of regret, many thought that change was in the air. It wasn’t!
Far from shrinking, finance generated new profit records, handed out record bonuses, and rehashed the risky practices that had produced the Great Recession. Mortgage debt — the proximate cause of the Wall Street collapse — is now at levels higher than in the pre-crisis period. The stock of BBB-rated bonds in Europe and the United States has quadrupled since 2008. Public debt has ballooned. And collateralised loan obligations, or CLOs, have surged to $3 trillion, “reminiscent of the steep rise in collateralized debt obligations that amplified the subprime crisis,” according to the Bank of International Settlements.
How did the financiers succeed in snatching such riches out of the jaws of their bankruptcy? By a combination of carrots, sticks, and tricks. The carrots went to the banks, in the form of bailouts shifting failed bets onto public balance sheets, while the weaker citizens were treated to the sticks – in the form of austerity. To justify this injustice, a subprime crisis of the financial sector was disguised as a public debt crisis, blaming the ‘overgenerous’ welfare state for the bankers’ recklessness.
And then there was the bag of tricks deployed by central banks to create a sense of recovery spanning not just finance but the rest of the economy too. Quantitative Easing, or QE, was the most impressive trick. Key to recognising how it worked is to recall that banks hate one thing more than bank robbers: Assets that they have on their books (e.g. bonds) which they cannot lend with interest! After the 2008 collapse, with investment dead in the water, the central banks had pushed interest rates to near, or sometimes below, zero – hoping to kickstart investment. But this drove bankers up the wall, since they could not charge interest to lend their assets.
To help them along, the central banks bought trillions of these assets from the banks, using freshly minted cash. One knew that things got silly when the Bank of England bought IOUs issued by McDonald’s, or when the ECB recommended to one of us to repay a debt Greece had to the ECB with private IOUs issued by Greece’s bankrupt banks, guaranteed by our bankrupt state, and rented out to the ECB for monies with which to repay the ECB!
On the surface, the tricks worked. The influx of central bank money ended the recession, shrank unemployment, even revived the United States’ gargantuan trade deficit to its pre-2008 levels. Business-as-usual regained its dominance in the commentariat’s mindset and banks were declared safe again. Meanwhile, environmental concerns, that had been confined to the backburner in 2008, returned but were not considered a good enough reason to rethink the financial system. In this climate, calls for a radical twenty-first century Green New Deal are dismissed as an overreaction.
Under the surface, however, the crisis that began in 2008 is deepening. Coupled with generalised austerity for the many, QE has had four poisonous effects: Negative interest rates eating into the middle class’ savings, pitiful investment in people and combating climate change and, unsurprisingly, skyrocketing inequality. How is QE accountable for these effects which are also the main drivers of, on the one hand, xenophobic nativism and, on the other, the youth’s rebellion?
Company CEOs looked around, saw a sea of austerity-hit consumers and, logically, predicted low demand. Flush with QE cash, instead of investing in well-paying jobs and green technologies, they opted to buy back their own shares, thus pushing up their share price, their shareholders’ dividends, their bonuses. In 2018, buybacks soared to $806 billion, an annual 55 per cent increase. According the Bank of England, the overall effect of QE was to increase the wealth of the bottom 10 per cent in the UK by roughly £3,000, and that of the top 10 per cent by £350,000.
Meanwhile, as the planet continued to warm, ecosystems collapsed, and increasing numbers of species became extinct, public investment shrank. In the United States it fell to 1.4 per cent of GDP, its lowest level in 75 years. In the Eurozone, net public investment has remained near zero for nearly a decade, with infrastructure investment in Southern European countries over 30 per cent lower than in the pre-crisis era.
Now, a decade later, the old tricks have stopped working, like antibiotics to which the bacteria have adapted. Recession is in the air at a time when interest rates are at zero and QE can only contribute further asset inflation and inequality. Central banks are “pushing on a string,” as former Fed governor Marriner Eccles once said.
Even figures with impeccable establishment credentials, like retiring ECB President Mario Draghi, are acknowledging that their tricks are no longer working. Their answer? Bring back a mild form of Keynesianism. Referring to a recent ECB board meeting Mr Draghi informed the world that “[t]here was unanimity that fiscal policy should become the main instrument.” Alas, that would be too little and it will come too late.
Small boosts in European government deficits, including the UK, will do no more than to add a little green around the edges of a brown, sad reality. In the United States, deficits are already high, following Trump’s despicable handouts to corporations already swimming in cash. Young people will treat calls for mild Keynesianism with the same contempt that they reserve for the new European Commission’s marketing ploy of creating a so-called Green New Deal portfolio lacking any transformative content, funding or vision.
The West’s lost decade is now a clear and present danger to our social and environmental fabric. Nothing short of a systemic change funded by a massive public green investment program will do. The minimum we need is to invest $5 trillion annually, or 5% of global income, in parallel with wealth transfers within the West and to the global South. To succeed we must incorporate a central idea of Roosevelt’s New Deal: Utilise public finance to press idle cash into the service of planet and humanity.
Technically, we know how to implement this Green New Deal. What is missing is the political coordination between climate strikers, scientists, workers on zero-hours contract, migrants leaving war-torn countries etc. to force governments to face up to the only real choice: Green New Deal or bust.

ΜΟΛΙΣ ΑΚΥΡΩΣΑ ΕΠΙΣΗΜΗ ΟΜΙΛΙΑ ΜΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥΠΟΛΗ ΩΣ ΔΙΑΜΑΡΤΥΡΙΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΕΙΣΒΟΛΗ ΤΟΥ ΤΟΥΡΚΙΚΟΥ ΣΤΡΑΤΟΥ ΣΤΟ ΣΥΡΙΑΚΟ ΚΟΥΡΔΙΣΤΑΝ

Με λύπη, και μετά από πολλή σκέψη, ανακοινώνω την απόφασή μου να αποσυρθώ από το διεθνές συνέδριο που διοργανώνει η Τουρκική κρατική ραδιοτηλεόραση (TRT World) στην Κωνσταντινούπολη την 21η Οκτωβρίου.

Yanis Varoufakis will be taking part in "New Horizons for Emerging Powers: Co-operation or Competition?" at #TRTWorldForum on 21 Oct. Visit our website: https://t.co/0KU517OhcO pic.twitter.com/pAMulNY4eh

— TRT World Forum (@trtworldforum) September 30, 2019

Δεν είναι δυνατόν να παραβρεθώ όταν τα στρατεύματα της χώρας που θα με φιλοξενεί πλήττουν όχι μόνο τους ηρωικούς Κούρδους μαχητές και τις μαχήτριες που, σχεδόν μόνοι τους, κατατρόπωσαν την ISIS εκ μέρους όλων μας. Άλλωστε μόνος μεταξύ των ελλήνων πολιτικών είχα εναντιωθεί από το βήμα της Βουλής σε αυτή την εισβολή μια μέρα πριν ξεκινήσει!

Και δεν είναι μόνο η αλληλεγγύη προς τον Κουρδικό λαό που με οδήγησε στην ακύρωση της συμμετοχής μου. Είναι εξ ίσου και η ανάγκη να δείξουμε αλληλεγγύη προς τους Τούρκους δημοκράτες οι οποίοι πασχίζουν να περιορίσουν τον διογκούμενο αυταρχισμό της τουρκικής κυβέρνησης.
Θλίβομαι επειδή ήθελα να παραβρεθώ στο εν λόγω συνέδριο για δύο λόγους: Πρώτον, επειδή θα μοιραζόμουν το βήμα με την φίλη Ντίλμα Ρούσσεφ (πρώην Πρόεδρο της Βραζιλίας) για να συζητήσουμε περί Παγκοσμιοποίησης. Δεύτερον, επειδή θα ήταν μια καλή ευκαιρία για συνεύρεση με τούρκους δημοκράτες, δημοσιογράφους και πανεπιστημιακούς. Για αυτή την ευκαιρία, ευχαριστώ το TRT World για την ευγενική τους πρόσκληση.
Όμως, η ενθουσιώδης υποστήριξη από το TRT World της εν εξελίξει εισβολής στη Βόρεια Συρία καθιστά ηθικά και πολιτικά αδύνατη την συμμετοχή μου. Μετά από συζήτηση με τούρκους συνοδοιπόρους του ΜέΡΑ25-DiEM25, αποφασίσαμε πως είναι απαραίτητη η ακύρωση της συμμετοχής μου ως δείγμα αλληλεγγύης προς εκείνους – προς τους τούρκους δημοκράτες οι οποίοι αντιτάσσονται στην στρατιωτική εισβολή ως αποτρόπαια πράξη η οποία ακυρώνει την διαδικασία ειρήνευσης μεταξύ της Άγκυρας και του Κουρδικού πληθυσμού εντός και εκτός της Τουρκίας. Οι Τούρκοι δημοκράτες γνωρίζουν καλά πως η σημερινή εισβολή αποτελεί πλήγμα για την δημοκρατία και την ειρήνη εντός της Τουρκίας.
Αν και ακύρωσα την συμμετοχή μου στο συνέδριο της TRT World, μαζί με τους Τούρκους συνοδοιπόρους μας προγραμματίζουμε εντός του Δεκεμβρίου επίσκεψη στην Κωνσταντινούπολη, και σειρά συναντήσεων, που θα μας δώσουν την ευκαιρία να προωθήσουμε τον προοδευτικό διεθνισμό που οι χώρες μας, οι λαοί μας, η δημοκρατία μας έχουν τόσο μεγάλη ανάγκη.

 

 

I just pulled out of a conference in Turkey in protest at the invasion of Northern Syria’s Kurdish region

It is with profound regret, and after much reflection, that I am pulling out as a speaker at an interesting and worthy international conference organised by TRT World in Istanbul on 21st October. I do so in protest of the Turkish armed forces’ invasion of Northern Syria. The ongoing invasion is not only an assault on Syria’s Kurdish forces that almost single-handedly, and heroically, defeated ISIS on the ground but, also, an assault on Turkish democrats and their campaign to check the creeping authoritarianism of the Turkish government.

Yanis Varoufakis will be taking part in "New Horizons for Emerging Powers: Co-operation or Competition?" at #TRTWorldForum on 21 Oct. Visit our website: https://t.co/0KU517OhcO pic.twitter.com/pAMulNY4eh

— TRT World Forum (@trtworldforum) September 30, 2019

This is a conference I was looking forward to for two reasons. First, because I would have shared a platform with Dilma Rousseff, former President of Brazil, to discuss globalisation and its discontents. Secondly, and more importantly, because of an urgent need to forge close links with Turkish democrats, academics and journalists in a bid to strengthen the bonds binding progressives in Greece and in Turkey. For these reasons, I wish to thank TRT World for inviting me.
However, TRT World’s enthusiastic support of the recent invasion of Northern Syria makes it impossible for me to attend. After conversations with many Turkish friends, I decided to cancel my appearance in solidarity with them – with democrats in Turkey who are appalled at the invasion of the Turkish armed forces in Northern Syria’s Kurdish-held areas and who see this as a further departure from the rapprochement between Ankara and the Kurdish people. Turkish democrats know well that this invasion undermines further the prospects of peace and democracy within Turkey itself.
While I am cancelling this appearance, together with Turkish friends, colleagues and comrades we are planning a visit to Istanbul, and a series of meetings, that will give us an opportunity to promote the progressive internationalism that our countries, our peoples and our democracies so desperately need.