Yanis Varoufakis's Blog, page 72

Quantitative Easing: Its rationale, impact and the future of the world economy – Audio of speech delivered at ICA 2019

Hosted by Bahrain Financial Market Association, the two-day conference organized in cooperation with the Central Bank of Bahrain themed “Reshaping Finance in a Changing Economy”. The ICA hosted the Greek former Minister of Finance Professor Yanis Varoufakis at a panel discussion moderated by Dr. Jarmo T. Kotilaine the Chief Planning and Monitoring Officer of Tamkeen. Other prominent guests were former French President Nicolas Sarkozy and former British Prime Minister David Cameron.

 

https://www.icaconference.com/

“Brexit, for all its ills, has reinvigorated British democracy” – Cambridge Union address, 8 NOV 2019

Last Friday (8th November 2019), I delivered a Cambridge Union address on (what else?) Brexit. My opening message was: “Instead of moaning about the state of British institutions, rejoice! For all its many ills, Brexit has reinvigorated British democracy.” Unlike most continental European parliaments, the House of Commons remains at the heart of decision making and, to boot, the British public are heavily engaged in a much needed re-assessment of Britain’s constitution and socio-economic model. The downside, of course, is the toxicity of the debate and the chasm between Remainers and Leavers.
Beginning with an historical explanation of the deeper causes of British euroscepticism (focusing on the tension between British and Continental versions of capitalism), I concluded hopefully by pointing out that the 12th December forthcoming election offers voters an opportunity to choose between two clear options – which go well beyond Brexit as they involve different visions for the UK: One that is distinctly neoliberal and dedicated to extending the model of a low-wage, low-productivity, light regulation Singapore-like country. And another vision that will (A) keep the UK in or very close to the EU while (b) leading Europe down the much needed path toward a genuine, well-funded, progressive Green New Deal.
This pre-election clash of visions offers Britons an opportunity to heal divisions via a thoughtful debate. As for my preferred election outcome, it could not be clearer: A Corbyn-led, Green New Deal-pursuing, Labour government!

 

Capitalism, Democracy and Europe – Interviewed for the Great Transition Initiative

As harsh austerity and xenophobic nationalism fester in Europe, Yanis Varoufakis discusses his antidote with Tellus Senior Fellow Allen White.

What inspired your career trajectory from academic economist to prominent supranational activist?

I went into politics because of the financial crisis of 2008. Had financial capitalism not imploded, I would have happily continued my quite obscure academic work at some university. The chain reaction of economic crises, financial bailouts, and the rise of what I call the Nationalist International that almost broke financial capitalism, and brought Greece severe hardship, had a profound impact on me.

In the early to mid-2000s, I was beginning to feel that a crash was approaching. I could see that global financial imbalances were growing exponentially and that our generation or the next would be hampered by a systemic crisis.

I left my cocoon writing about mathematical economics and moved from Sydney to Athens at the time Greece was becoming insolvent. I began writing about the current situation and appearing on TV, warning against covering up insolvency with bailouts. Through these appearances as well as writing about government’s role in averting the impending crisis, I drifted into politics.

The second transition, from government to activism, was much simpler. Restructuring Greece’s debt was my top priority as Minister of Finance. The moment the Prime Minister surrendered to the austerity demands of the European Commission and accepted another loan without debt restructuring, resignation became the easiest decision of my life. Once I resigned, I was back in the streets, theaters, and town hall meetings setting up the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25). I saw activism as the best way to confront the political and banking establishment. Four years later, in July 2019, our Greek branch, entitled MeRA25, entered Parliament with nine MPs. The fight continues.

You are one of the sharpest critics of neoliberalism today. How would you define “neoliberalism”?

To begin, let me challenge the term “neoliberal.” The use of the term in relation to West-Soviet relations was just a cloak under which to hide libertarian industrial feudalism, but neoliberalism has as much to do with financialized capital post-1970s as it does with Cold War geopolitical relations. Similarly—and I know this is a controversial statement—there’s nothing neoliberal about the world we live in today. It is neither new in the sense of “neo” nor liberal in the sense of fostering democratic values. Look at what has been happening in Europe over the last decade. Gigantic bank bailouts are funded through taxation. There is nothing really “neoliberal” about the use of such vast subsidies from the public to finance capitalists.

Even under the government of Margaret Thatcher in the UK from 1979 to 1990, the height of so-called neoliberalism in the UK, the British state grew rapidly, becoming bigger, more powerful, and more authoritarian than ever. We witnessed a state that was weaponized on behalf of the City of London to the benefit of a very small segment of the population. I don’t think we should concede the term “neoliberalism” to the brutish establishment using state power to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

How has this “brutish establishment” become so dominant in shaping the global order?

The first two decades after World War II were the Golden Era of capitalism for a very simple reason: Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was projected onto the rest of the West under the Bretton Woods system. It was a remarkable, though imperfect, system, a kind of enlightenment without socialism. Structures to restrain financial capital were put into place. Banks could not do as they pleased; that’s why bankers hated the Bretton Woods system. Recall that Roosevelt banned bankers from attending the Bretton Woods conference and subjected them to reserve controls and rules against shifting money across international borders.

The result of the Bretton Woods system was a remarkable reduction in inequality concurrent with steady growth, low unemployment, and next to zero inflation. The system was predicated upon the US’s status as a surplus country, recycling wealth through Europe and Japan in a variety of ways. By the end of the 1960s, however, the Bretton Woods system proved unsustainable. The US began to incur trade deficits with Europe, Japan, and later China at the same time Wall Street, unrestrained by regulatory boundaries, attracted most of the profits from the rest of the world.

Unshackled financial institutions began creating what amounted to private money. Holding an inflow of $5 billion daily for a mere five minutes was enough to divvy it up into derivatives, opaque investment instruments that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. This and other forms of financial engineering produced huge volumes of private money, the value of which, as in the 1929 crash, eventually collapsed in domino-like fashion. Authorities in Washington, Brussels, Paris, and Athens immediately transferred the resulting losses onto the shoulders of taxpayers, a form of socialism for bankers. I described this colossal mishandling of our financial system in my 2009 book The Global Minotaur, six years before I became the Greek Minister of Finance.

When I became Minister, I believed that a global crisis of capitalism was underway. Imagine, then, my walking into a meeting of the Eurogroup with all the European finance ministers in the room who knew I held this view. I was the red flag in the eyes of the establishment. In the same vein, the German ambassador to Greece and one of the most powerful (and most corrupt) Greek bankers had warned the future, democratically elected Prime Minster that my appointment as Finance Minister would cause them to close ATMs across the country and lead to collapse of the Greek banking system.

Given your experience inside and outside government, do you believe that there is a fundamental tension between capitalism and democracy?

Yes. Compare the character of a democratic election with a general meeting of shareholders of a private corporation. Both are elections, but in the democratic process, the one person-one vote rule applies, whereas in the corporate process, you have one share-one vote, essentially a wealth-based voting structure. My fellow economists, especially the true believers in free markets, love to portray the market as a voting mechanism. It is true that every time you buy a tub of yogurt, you are voting in favor of that brand. The same applies when you buy a Ford as opposed to a Volkswagen. The more money one has, the more votes one casts.

So, if you think of capitalism as a voting mechanism, it is anti-democratic in the sense that money determines power. The evolution of capitalism over the last few centuries is a history of the constant transfer of power to the wealthy, including the power to make decisions that affect the distribution of income.

Over time, power has been redistributed from the political sphere to the economic sphere. Until the early eighteenth century, there was no difference between these spheres. If you were the king or the baron, you also were rich. And if you were rich, you belonged to the nobility. With the rise of capitalism, a lowly merchant could become economically powerful. As the separation of the political and the economic evolved, power gradually transferred to the latter. What we now call democracy is not real democracy given the growing influence of economic power. To be sure, the voting franchise has been extended to all males (from only landowners), to women, and to blacks. A parallel democratization process has not occurred in the economic sphere, where power has become less inclusive and increasingly concentrated.

From the 1870s to the 1920s, democracy gradually became disempowered as the corporate world—a democracy-free zone—emerged. Since the end of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s, power has migrated to finance. Goldman Sachs suddenly became more important than Ford, General Motors, or General Electric. Even corporations like Apple and Google are increasingly becoming financialized. Apple, for example, is sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars, and it is operating more like a financier than an iPhone producer.

This dynamic guarantees that when we vote, an act of celebrating democracy, we increasingly are participating in a sphere that has become totally disempowered. Capitalism is predicated on defeating democracy, even as the democratic cloak continues to legitimize the prevailing system.

Given this fundamental tension between capitalism and democracy, do you believe the European Union can be reformed? And if so, how?

We must aim for something much closer to a democratic federated Europe than what we have now. The tragedy is that the moment you start making such a case as the only antidote to disintegration, you serve the cause of nationalists, xenophobes, racists, and fascists. In ten years, either we’re going to have a democratic federated European Union, or the political monsters will be victorious.

How do we achieve a future democratic federation? The most urgent and difficult task is to go out into the streets of Athens, Rome, Berlin, Paris, and Lisbon and have a discussion with people about the crisis the EU faces. Many don’t want to hear about Europe’s future anymore. What used to be a very attractive vision of a unified Europe as a larger homeland for all its citizens has become toxic in the minds and the hearts of many Europeans. For them, the democratic European Union has become synonymous with an anti-humanist, even totalitarian, vision. We need to construct a new vision to counteract this kind of thinking.

You have been at the forefront of the recently formed Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25). Tell us about DiEM25’s pan-European mission and strategy.

DiEM25 seeks to put forward proposals that stimulate cooperation that is truly democratic. This will take time and will require recreating European institutions and a political economy that includes a massive Green New Deal or similar strategy. We must spend immediately at least 500 billion Euros annually on green energy, green transport, and a green transition in industry and agriculture. We can do this by creatively harnessing the power of existing institutions. The European Investment Bank, for example, could issue bonds worth half a trillion Euros every year, with that money going toward good-quality green jobs and technologies. The European Central Bank, sitting on the sidelines, could be ready to buy these bonds if needed to keep inflation in check. At the same time, we must engage with a broad spectrum of groups to stabilize Europe and so to bring back hope. With that movement underway, we can then have a discussion about democratic governance of the EU.

I’m an old-fashioned lefty. I don’t believe in destroying institutions. I believe in taking them over and transforming them into true public servants.

What does DiEM25 offer beyond the proposals of parties like Die Linke in Germany, Podemos in Spain, or other Green or Left parties throughout Europe?

Most members of these groups are our friends and comrades. We share a humanist attitude towards life and capitalism. The reason we created DiEM25 is that the major crises in Europe require local and national action as well as pan-European, if not global, action. It makes no sense to prioritize the local and national over the transnational, or vice versa. We must operate simultaneously at all levels.

For example, the design of urban transportation systems must consider the planetary, or systemic, impacts of alternative choices. The problem with national political parties is that they are not very good at such systemic thinking. What we need in Europe is a pan-European movement, which is more than a confederacy of autonomously operating states that make promises to local and national electorates independently of one another and then get together in Brussels to discuss the promises that each has committed to. This model is doomed to fail.

When DiEM25 was inaugurated in February of 2016, we sought to bring together Podemos, Die Linke, and allies from the UK to develop a Green New Deal for Europe. We hoped to unify such movements around a common pan-European program. It didn’t work out that way. Why? Die Linke comprises two distinct groups: one faction believes that the European Union is beyond redemption and should be dismantled; the other believes that the EU is salvageable through democratic activism and social transformation, a view shared by DiEM. This division between supporters of “exit” and “remain” stood in the way of an alliance.

Another impediment to unity was that Podemos and others opposed a European voice in national and local policies and decision-making. What is Podemos going to say, for example, about the level and allocation of investment funds among member states? If a Podemos candidate is elected to the European Parliament, what financial policies will she support? We need clarity and unity on such issues—to have a voice not of a Greek, a German, or a Spaniard, but of a European internationalist. We will continue to struggle to create a unified, coherent agenda for all of Europe. Unity without cohesion is the curse of the left.

Let’s not forget that the historical call was not for workers of each nation to organize within their borders. It was for workers of the world to unite.

Are there lessons to be learned from previous episodes of leftist internationalism, such as the Internationals, for our current time of global mobilization?

There are many lessons. Anybody who doesn’t learn from history is a dangerous fanatic. Lesson number one is that socialist nationalism is the worst antidote to national socialism. Remember what happened in World War I when the German Social Democrats were co-opted into a nationalist agenda and supported the war effort of Germany against the much of Europe. That kind of socialist nationalism will always be gobbled up by Nazism. Anyone who supports a left-wing agenda and at the same time supports a nationalist, populist workers agenda is going to be devoured by fascists. They will end up effectively blowing wind into the fascists’ sails, intentionally or not.

Lesson number two is that Internationals fail if they are just a confederacy of national parties. The moment agendas and organizations are nationally based, as was the case in postwar Communist parties, the international movement will inevitably fragment and collapse. This is why DiEM25 places all its energies into not becoming a confederacy of a Greek DiEM25, a German DiEM25, and an Italian DiEM25. This is not a theoretical matter, but a practical one: transnationality as opposed to confederacy is critical to building a new, progressive political enterprise. Studying the failures of earlier Internationals is fundamental in shaping this strategy.

To be clear, when we created DiEM25, we envisioned a movement, not a party. And it remains a movement, but we decided about a year ago to create our own “electoral wings” in each country. In Germany, DiEM25 created Democratie Europa (“Democracy in Europe”); in Denmark, Alternativet (“The Alternative”). In short, if you are a member of a DiEM25–created party, you also are a member of the larger movement. But you also can be a member of the larger movement without membership in a DiEM25-created party.

In a forthcoming book, you imagine “another world” in 2035 in which global financial capital is essentially demolished. What would this world look like? What would it take to get there?

I begin with the view that the present system is, simply stated, both awful and unsustainable. My story is told from the perspective of 2035, when my characters discover that, back in 2008, at the height of our crisis, the timeline split into two: one that you and I inhabit and another one that yielded a post-capitalist society. It is my narrative strategy for sketching out how post-capitalism could work and feel today had our response to the 2008 been different.

My forthcoming book, entitled Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present, asks the following questions: Could the world be non-capitalist or post-capitalist? Could we see humanism in action? What would it look like? What would socialist corporations look like? How would they function? How would democracy function? What would happen to borders, migration, and defense? I try to create a vision of a liberal, socialist society that is not based on private property but does use money as a vehicle for exchange and markets as coordinating devices. I preserve money and markets because the alternative would be to fall to some fearsome hierarchical control, which, for me, is a nightmare scenario.

A deep transformation of values and institutions is essential to building a world of solidarity, well-being, and ecological resilience—what we call a Great Transition—is more urgent than ever. In a dark time, what basis for hope and advice can you offer fellow internationalists at this critical, historic moment?

We have the tools necessary in order to spend at least five percent of the global GDP on a Great Transition that saves the planet. Technically, we know how to create a new Bretton Woods, a progressive Green New Deal that diverts resources to saving the planet and creating quality green jobs across the globe.

To achieve such a future, we must offer a cautionary note regarding the role of borders. Some on the left are unfortunately moving toward the belief that migrants are a threat to domestic workers. That is a right-wing narrative that is factually untrue. We need to emancipate progressives from the notion that strong borders protect the working class. They do not. They are a scar on the face of the Earth, and they harm labor across the world.

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...