• La garantie d’emploi, un outil au potentiel révolutionnaire | Romaric Godin

    L’ouvrage de Pavlina Tcherneva qui inaugure la collection « Économie politique » avance une proposition qui peut paraître a priori insensée : fournir à tous les citoyens qui le souhaitent un travail rémunéré, permettant de vivre décemment. Tout l’intérêt de son propos est de montrer que, précisément, cette proposition n’a rien d’insensé, mais qu’elle est parfaitement réalisable pour peu que l’on se libère de certaines certitudes qui ne sont que des constructions politiques. L’idée que le chômage soit le mode d’ajustement « normal » de l’économie est déjà un choix politique remarquablement déconstruit par l’autrice. Source : (...)

  • Pourquoi le Green New Deal doit être décolonial

    Pour relever le défi de l’urgence écologique, le Green New Deal devra être « #Décolonial ». Il devra rompre avec le modèle dominant et l’occidentalisation du monde, par le démantèlement des structures néocoloniales et des mécanismes d’exploitation des peuples et de leur #Environnement. Il ne sauvera la planète qu’en visant l’égalité sociale, raciale et de genre, la relocalisation de l’économie et de nouveaux rapports à la (...) #Alternatives_Sud_-_extraits

    / Décolonial, Environnement, #Ecologie

  • #Webinars. #COVID-19 Capitalism #Webinar Series

    Since 1 April, #TNI with allies has brought together experts and activists weekly to discuss how this pandemic health crisis exposes the injustices of the global economic order and how it must be a turning point towards creating the systems, structures and policies that can always protect those who are marginalised and allow everyone to live with dignity. Every Wednesday at 4pm CET.

    TNI works closely with allied organisations and partners around the world in organising these webinars. AIDC and Focus on the Global South are co-sponsors for the full series.


    Les conférences déjà en ligne sont ci-dessous en commentaire.


    Les prochains webinars:

    On 10 June, TNI will hold a webinar on Taking on the Tech Titans: Reclaiming our Data Commons.

    Upcoming webinars - Wednesdays at 4pm CET

    17 June: Borders and migration
    #frontières #migrations

    24 June: Broken Trade System

    #capitalisme #vidéo #conférence #coronavirus

    ping @isskein @reka

    • Building an internationalist response to Coronavirus


      Sonia Shah, award-winning investigative science journalist and author of Pandemic: Tracking contagions from Cholera to Ebola and Beyond (2017).
      Luis Ortiz Hernandez, public health professor in UAM-Xochimilco, Mexico. Expert on social and economic health inequities.
      Benny Kuruvilla, Head of India Office, Focus on the Global South, working closely with Forum For Trade Justice.
      Mazibuko Jara, Deputy Director, Tshisimani Centre for Activist Education, helping to coordinate a national platform of civic organisations in South Africa to confront COVID-19.
      Umyra Ahmad, Advancing Universal Rights and Justice Associate, Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), Malaysia


    • The coming global recession: building an internationalist response

      Recording of a TNI-hosted webinar on Wednesday, 8 April with Professor Jayati Ghosh, Quinn Slobodian, Walden Bello and Lebohang Pheko on the likely global impacts of the economic fallout from the Coronavirus and how we might be better prepared than the 2008 economic crisis to put forward progressive solutions.

      The webinar explored what we can expect in terms of a global recession that many predict could have bigger social impacts than the virus itself. How should we prepare? What can social movements learn from our failures to advance alternative progressive policies in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis?



      Professor Jayati Ghosh, award-winning economist Jawaharlal Nehru University, India. Author of India and the International Economy (2015) and co-editor of Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Development, 2018.
      Quinn Slobodian, associate professor of history, Wellesley College. Author of Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (2018)
      Walden Bello, author of Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash (2019) and Capitalism’s Last Stand?: Deglobalization in the Age of Austerity (2013)

      Lebohang Liepollo Pheko, Senior Research Fellow of Trade Collective, a thinktank in South Africa that works on international trade, globalisation, regional integration and feminist economics

      #récession #crise_économique

    • A Recipe for Disaster: Globalised food systems, structural inequality and COVID-19

      A dialogue between Rob Wallace, author of Big Farms Make Big Flu and agrarian justice activists from Myanmar, Palestine, Indonesia and Europe.

      The webinar explored how globalised industrial food systems set the scene for the emergence of COVID-19, the structural connections between the capitalist industrial agriculture, pathogens and the precarious conditions of workers in food systems and society at large. It also touched on the kind of just and resilient food systems we need to transform food and agriculture today?



      Rob Wallace author of Big Farms Make Big Flu and co-author of Neoliberal Ebola: Modeling Disease Emergence from Finance to Forest and Farm.
      Moayyad Bsharat of Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), member organization of La Via Campesina in Palestine.
      Arie Kurniawaty of Indonesian feminist organization Solidaritas Perempuan (SP) which works with women in grassroots communities across the urban-rural spectrum.
      Sai Sam Kham of Metta Foundation in Myanmar.
      Paula Gioia, peasant farmer in Germany and member of the Coordination Committee of the European Coordination Via Campesina.

      #inégalités #agriculture #alimentation


      Big Farms Make Big Flu

      In this collection of dispatches, by turns harrowing and thought-provoking, #Rob_Wallace tracks the ways #influenza and other pathogens emerge from an agriculture controlled by multinational corporations. With a precise and radical wit, Wallace juxtaposes ghastly phenomena such as attempts at producing featherless chickens with microbial time travel and neoliberal Ebola. While many books cover facets of food or outbreaks, Wallace’s collection is the first to explore infectious disease, agriculture, economics, and the nature of science together.


    • Taking Health back from Corporations: pandemics, big pharma and privatized health

      This webinar brought together experts in healthcare and activists at the forefront of struggles for equitable universal public healthcare from across the globe. It examined the obstacles to access to medicines, the role of Big Pharma, the struggles against health privatisation, and the required changes in global governance of health to prevent future pandemics and bring about public healthcare for all.



      Susan George, Author and President of the Transnational Institute
      Baba Aye, Health Officer, Public Services International
      Mark Heywood, Treatment Action Campaign, Section27 and editor at the Daily Maverick
      Kajal Bhardwaj, Independent lawyer and expert on health, trade and human rights
      David Legge, Peoples Health Movement Moderator: Monica Vargas, Corporate Power Project, Transnational Institute

      #santé #big-pharma #industrie_pharmaceutique #privatisation #système_de_santé

    • States of Control – the dark side of pandemic politics

      In response to an unprecedented global health emergency, many states are rolling out measures from deploying armies and drones to control public space, to expanding digital control through facial recognition technology and tracker apps.

      This webinar explored the political dimension of state responses, particularly the securitisation of COVID-19 through the expansion of powers for military, police, and security forces. It examined the impact of such repression on certain groups who are unable to socially distance, as well as how digital surveillance is being rolled out with little, if any democratic oversight.



      Fionnuala Ni Aolain, UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism, University of Minnesota
      Arun Kundnani, New York University, author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, extremism, and the domestic War on Terror and The End of Tolerance: racism in 21st century Britain
      Anuradha Chenoy, School of International Studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University (retired), and author of Militarisation and Women in South Asia
      María Paz Canales, Derechos Digitales (Digital Rights campaign), Chile

      #contrôle #surveillance #drones #reconnaissance_faciale #démocratie

      ping @etraces

    • A Global Green New Deal

      This sixth webinar in our COVID Capitalism series asked what a truly global #Green_New_Deal would look like. It featured Richard Kozul-Wright (UNCTAD), and leading activists from across the globe leading the struggle for a just transition in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic.



      Richard Kozul-Wright, Director of the Division on Globalization and Development Strategies at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, author of Transforming Economies: Making Industrial Policy Work for Growth, Jobs and Development
      Karin Nansen, chair of Friends of the Earth International, founding member of REDES – Friends of the Earth Uruguay
      Sandra van Niekerk, Researcher for the One Million Climate Jobs campaign, South Africa


    • Proposals for a democratic just economy

      Outgoing UN rapporteur, #Philip_Alston in conversation with trade unionists and activists in Italy, Nigeria and India share analysis on the impacts of privatisation in a time of COVID-19 and the strategies for resistance and also constructing participatory public alternatives.



      Philip Alston, outgoing UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
      Rosa Pavanelli, General Secretary of the global union federation Public Services International (PSI)
      Aderonke Ige, Our Water, Our Rights Campaign in Lagos / Environmental Rights Action /Friends of The Earth Nigeria
      Sulakshana Nandi, Co-chair, People’s Health Movement Global (PHM Global)

      #privatisation #participation #participation_publique #résistance

    • Feminist Realities – Transforming democracy in times of crisis

      An inspiring global panel of feminist thinkers and activists reflect and discuss how we can collectively reorganise, shift power and pivot towards building transformative feminist realities that can get us out of the worsening health, climate and capitalist crises.



      Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of History and the Director of Global Studies at Purdue University and co-author of the manifesto Feminism for the 99%.
      Laura Roth, Lecturer of legal and political philosophy at Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, member of Minim Municipalist Observatory and co-author of the practice-oriented report Feminise Politics Now!
      Awino Okech, Lecturer at the Centre for Gender Studies at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London who brings over twelve years of social justice transformation work in Eastern Africa, the Great Lakes region, and South Africa to her teaching, research and movement support work.
      Khara Jabola-Carolus, Executive Director of the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, co-founder of AF3IRM Hawaii (the Association of Feminists Fighting Fascism, Imperialism, Re-feudalization, and Marginalization) and author of Hawaii’s Feminist Economic Recovery Plan for COVID-19.
      Felogene Anumo, Building Feminist Economies, AWID presenting the #feministbailout campaign


    • COVID-19 and the global fight against mass incarceration

      November 3rd, 2015, Bernard Harcourt (Columbia Law School) and Naomi Murakawa (Princeton) present rival narratives about mass incarceration in America. In The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order , Harcourt shows the interdependence of contract enforcements in global markets and punitive authority. InThe First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America, by contrast, Murakawa traces prison growth to liberal campaigns and progressive legislation. Together, Murakawa and Harcourt offer fresh ideas about into the political, economic and ethical dimensions of mass incarceration.


      Olivia Rope, Director of Policy and International Advocacy, Penal Reform International
      Isabel Pereira, Principal investigator at the Center for the Study of Law, Justice & Society (Dejusticia), Colombia
      Sabrina Mahtani, Advocaid Sierra Leone
      Maidina Rahmawati, Institute of Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), Indonesia
      Andrea James, Founder and Exec Director, and Justine Moore, Director of Training, National Council For Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, USA

      #prisons #emprisonnement_de_masse #USA #Etats-Unis

    • Une nouvelle définition politique du soin (ici pour une trad viteuf)

      For many of us, the last few weeks have marked a new phase of our corona-lives—a dark and lonely corridor that stretches before us, no end in sight. Earlier, we counted this crisis in days and weeks. Now we are coming to see that this virus will in all likelihood be with us for months and years. We can’t stand social distancing any longer, but we also can’t stop, because there is no infrastructure in place to safely allow us to go back to school and work.

      A Community Health Corps is one place to start to build a new movement that heals us and our body politic, and that will allow us—all of us—to survive a pandemic, and then, to thrive.
      Our federal leadership remains ruinous. President Trump, obsessed with ratings, still cannot seem to think beyond the twenty-four-hour news cycle. In the last week he first insisted he would reopen things in May, then abandoned the idea, perhaps having learned that he lacked the necessary power. He then cast around for others to blame, taking to Twitter to cheer on tiny and malevolent groups of protesters calling for a reopening the economy, damn the consequences. Tragically, in the wake of the president’s remarks, Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia announced he would let many businesses resume operations, though the state is flush with new cases, and there is no viable plan for containment going forward. Trump tried to walk back his remarks, saying he disagreed with Kemp, but the damage was done, and Georgia is proceeding full-steam ahead. The press to return to school and work will only intensify, for all of us—while Georgia, and other states that are making similar rumblings, have nothing to offer their citizens but decimation.

      What other way forward is there, over these coming months? As in the early phase, leadership and vision is going to come from elsewhere. It’ll come from reality-based local leaders, perhaps from Congress, and from us. As the timescale of our response to COVID-19 shifts to months and years, it’s time to ask: The day after all this is over, what do we want the world we share to look like? What are we willing to fight for? And how do we connect a long-term vision of that world worth fighting for with the things we need to do to mitigate the damage now?

      section separator

      Any response to the moment has to address two, twinned crises: the threat of a virus run out of control, and the carnage being visited on working people and families by the measures we need to undertake to contain the virus. While COVID-19 cuts its deadly swath from coast to coast, the disease follows the same patterns of inequality we’ve always seen embedded in the U.S. landscape, where the death rate for predominantly African American counties is six-fold higher than in predominantly white counties across the country, and where this crisis is just heaped upon others, which have been plaguing these communities for generations.

      Meanwhile, as millions of Americans stay at home in solidarity with their neighbors to protect them from infection, the economic contraction has come at great cost to families and individuals, dragging them to the brink in the most spectacular economic collapse since the 1930s. We are in the middle of a disaster scene today, aided and abetted by a political culture that has rushed to give corporations billions in bailouts but has largely hung ordinary people out to dry. Food pantries are running empty as farmers—themselves facing bankruptcy—plow their crops into the soil. Last week, the number of people who filed for unemployment benefits surged to more than twenty-six million. Poorer families and school districts don’t have the resources for online learning, meaning that we are leaving millions of kids behind. Rent strikes are popping up from coast to coast.

      We must build for a better future, not just climb out of the rubble of this pandemic, brush ourselves off, and start up in the same place we found ourselves in January 2020.
      With a disruption looming that may be as severe as the Great Depression, our ambition to confront it should be at the same scale. But our answer to these twin immediate crises must connect to a broader politics and vision that addresses the deep structural roots of the problems we face in America. We must build for a better future, not just climb out of the rubble of this pandemic, brush ourselves off, and start up in the same place we found ourselves in January 2020. In our earlier pieces in these pages, we’ve argued for a new politics of care, one organized around a commitment to universal provision for human needs; countervailing power for workers, people of color, and the vulnerable; and a rejection of carceral approaches to social problems. The question now is how to connect that vision to programmatic responses that address the needs of the moment and beyond. We need to aim at “non-reformist reforms”—reforms that embody a vision of the different world we want, and that work from a theory of power-building that recognizes that real change requires changing who has a say in our political process.

      Here’s one such reform: a massive new jobs program. Call it the Community Health Corps. Funded federally and organized locally, it would put millions of Americans to work caring for one another, and with far more sweeping goals than just turning around the sky-rocketing unemployment figures we see today. It would serve our needs for a vast force that can track and trace the virus, but add to it workers who can support those in need, all while securing our health and building real solidarity among us. Such a program, operating all around the country, in rural and urban areas alike, could help us get through this pandemic and mitigate the cataclysmic employment dislocation of the coming months and years.

      In truth, this is just a new form of an old idea—a Works Progress Administration (WPA) for an age of pandemics. But the aim is larger, to bring us through the crisis by calling into being government as we wish it to be—caring for us, bringing us together, while also enabling us to live our different lives. It would go beyond providing care to communities by stitching back together the personal connections among us torn asunder by our self-enforced isolation and by building power together, as workers and patients are tied to each other through the act of caregiving. It wouldn’t just create jobs to fill a hole during the crisis—it would develop skills and foster solidarity that will form the basis of the post-crisis economy, too.

      What jobs are needed? Start with contact tracing. The need here is straightforward and urgent. We cannot shelter in place forever, but reopening without measures to track the virus and sequester those exposed runs the same risk of swamping the health care system—infections and deaths will just come roaring back. Beyond the medical tragedy, such an outcome would also make a mockery of the sacrifices that millions of Americans have made over the past few months. That’s why every serious plan for reopening requires a massive scale-up in testing and contact tracing. The better we are at catching cases, notifying contacts, and supporting people who are sick or sequestered, the better control we will have over the virus, and the more “normal” life can be for those unexposed.

      Think of the people hired for contact tracing as virus detectives, who also have the under-appreciated skill of being able to talk to others with ease and empathy. They will engage people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID19) in a process of recalling everyone they’ve seen and everywhere they’ve been for days, while recording all this information in detail. They will then reach out to these contacts, advise them on testing and quarantine, refer them for testing, and link them to necessary resources to help them through their quarantine, from start to finish. Despite all the talk about technological shortcuts, this old-fashioned shoe-leather epidemiology is going to be the mainstay of our next phase of attempts to control COVID-19. Contact tracing in its most basic form has been around since the smallpox outbreaks in Leicester in the United Kingdom in the 1870s. We know how to do it, and it can be scaled up locally.

      Shoring up the foundations of U.S. health care by valuing care itself isn’t just the first step towards a more rapid, effective response to health threats in the future. It will also move us toward a new politics of care, that starts from the ground up.
      Technology can help supplement these human tasks but cannot replace them. The idea that apps alone will solve the problem of contact tracing is the product of the technological “solutionism” that writers such as Evgeny Morozov have rightly argued is endemic to our culture today: the notion that no matter the problem, an app can efficiently solve it. Why won’t apps be a silver bullet? For one thing, they raise serious privacy issues, especially if they are not voluntary. There are technical issues too. It will be difficult for some technologies, like those that rely on GPS, to distinguish true contacts from false ones in crowded, dense urban environments. The myriad apps under development now have not been beta-tested, let alone rolled out in the midst of a pandemic at such a scale. It also isn’t clear that app developers have spent time talking to the potential end-users of their products, building their tools to meet the needs of, and benefit from the expertise and experience of, local health departments. Finally, technological solutions almost always leave out many of those who lack full participation rights in a digitally enabled society. For example, in the rush to move our financial transactions online and replace paper money with electronic payments with apps from banks and start-ups such as Venmo, we’ve left out many from low-income communities, particularly from communities of color. Apps can help make contact tracing more effective, but we need to act now, hiring people to do this work that no app can do.

      Spend a moment imagining a day in the life of a contact tracer working in Queens or Sioux Falls and you quickly see why an app alone cannot address the rippling crises that SARS-CoV-2 unleashes in every family. You also see the insufficiency, even, of contact tracing alone. Imagine you reach out to your first contact, who has tested positive and been sent home because they do not require hospitalization. Someone who has just learned that they have been exposed will have a myriad of important questions and needs. A father may wonder how, if he cannot leave his room, he will get food to his kids who are home from school. A shift worker who is wrongly fired for being sick will need help accessing unemployment insurance and legal support. A daughter may need help finding someone to provide essential daily care for a mother with dementia. Someone living alone will need help to walk the dog. We will need another group of workers to help them navigate these kinds of problems, which will require a mix of social work, advocacy, and even perhaps basic legal skills or the ability to make referrals to those who have them real-time.

      Those going out to trace contacts are going to find more than just SARS-CoV-2 in the places they visit. There will be some homes they call where no one has been exposed to the virus, but where families are struggling to make ends meet, having trouble with their landlords or their utility companies, or struggling with lost or unhelpful health insurance. Recent data has shown that during this pandemic domestic abuse has become “more frequent, more severe and more dangerous” and that mental health and substance issue on the rise. We can’t just walk away from these people, our neighbors in crisis. In the narrowest sense, ignoring these needs will make it harder for people to keep social distancing. In a broader sense, if we use our politics at a time of existential need to impose an unlivable life on our fellow citizens—if we fail those for whom staying at home might be more dangerous than the virus—we will tear away at the fabric of solidarity and trust that we need to maintain the shared project that is democracy.

      Right now we’re leaving help with all of this largely to individuals, families, and voluntary support. Most of us know people who are cutting corners with social distancing because they just can’t meet their daily needs any other way. In the next phase of the pandemic, we will need a much more precise and effective system of sequestering people if we are to get and keep the virus under control. While the mutual aid networks springing up around the country can handle a few requests for support, as we scale-up testing, the need of these kinds of social services and economic aid will explode. This can’t be handled simply as a matter of volunteerism even if “conservatives dream of returning to a world where private charity fulfilled all public needs.”

      section separator

      What is the alternative to genuine, public support for those who must remain isolated? Doctors Jim Yong Kim and Harvey Fineberg made the case in the New York Times recently that the ill, and their exposed families, should all be moved to facilities where they could be isolated from each other and the wider community, but they didn’t provide much guidance on how to do this humanely. Nor did they grapple with what it might mean to propose this sort of measure in a country with our history of state violence, especially as visited on families of color, who are vastly overrepresented among the sick today. We need to protect families from their sick loved ones, but forcibly warehousing families or the mildly symptomatic is not the way. We need a politics of support and care, not separation and deprivation. It’s clear that following public health advice isn’t as easy as it sounds—and its costs do not fall evenly. So we need support people to undertake this act of solidarity.

      We need a politics of support and care, not separation and deprivation.
      Alongside the test-and-trace brigade, then, we need other brigades too. We need a cadre of social workers who can provide specific help to individuals infected and affected by COVID, to enable them to follow public health and medical advice. We need a vastly scaled up testing workforce. Some will be dressed up in personal protective equipment (PPE), working at drive-through testing sites, visiting apartment buildings and nursing homes, and stationed outside of grocery stores and other businesses that remained highly trafficked even in the midst of the pandemic.

      Others will be working in labs or transporting samples, helping to process the millions of tests we will need each week, possibly each day. If evidence mounts that early intervention and close monitoring is essential to saving lives, we will also need a new brigade of health workers who can make virtual or home visits. We can additionally train local workers to help us gather evidence—for example mapping local health and services needs through surveys, building on successful models of community-based research, and working to better guide local programs. These programs will not only help us understand and respond to the spread of the virus but help us build better health programs when it recedes.

      We also need to address the explosion of infections in the workplace. We’ve seen outbreaks, large and small in meat processing plants across the country, in Amazon warehouses and Walmarts, leading to walkouts and lawsuits. As more and more businesses re-open, employees and employers need help to keep themselves and their customers and clients safe. Areas for employees and customers must be re-configured to maximize social distancing, and new workplace protocols need to be developed. Employers should be held responsible for taking the steps needed to protect their workers and the public, and some of this will likely not come without a stronger role for labor—via labor-management commissions, for example. An infection control brigade could work in cooperation with employees and employers, advising them on best practices in infection control, and assuring that supplies of PPE, from masks to gloves to physical barriers like plexiglass shields for cashiers are available. They can also ensure that early signs of failures in infection control are discovered and addressed immediately.

      We are already seeing small steps in this direction. In Massachusetts, Partners in Health (PiH), which has experience building community health workforces in places hit by disease and disaster around the globe, has been asked by the state to spearhead their new contact-tracing program. In a matter of weeks, they have hired and trained close to a thousand people for these important and complex jobs. Aware of the importance of the work and the demands of the job, PiH is paying them the same rate as U.S. Census takers, $27 an hour, providing them with health insurance and making an emphasis on hiring the unemployed and building a diverse workforce. About 17,000 people have applied for these jobs, showing that there is clearly a deep pool of people willing and able to do this work. That should come as no surprise, given the staggering loss of work in recent weeks and the inadequacy of the current government supports, and the outpouring of support we’ve seen in communities and mutual aid networks. People want to help. We just need to organize them.

      The problem is, while these efforts are admirable, state-level programs are vastly underpowered and underfunded. Before the crisis public health departments employed fewer than 2,000 contact tracers in the country. The best estimate we have projects that we will need to hire as many as 300,000 of them to address this outbreak. We have cohorts to build on for caseworkers and legal support too. One such pool derives from so-called community health worker (CHW) programs, which have a long history both in the United States and around the world.

      The United States is sicker now with COVID-19, but we’ve been sick for long while in many other ways.
      Today, we have about 120,000 community health care workers in cities and towns around the country doing health education and prevention work, collecting data, making links between local residents and the services they need. They are most often from the communities they serve and which have been underserved historically by the patchwork of a health system we have in the United States. In the context of need for testing-tracing-isolating in the age of COVID-19, local CHWs will go a long way to establishing trust and comfort in these troubling times. Contact tracers too should be recruited from local communities. Having a neighbor show up at your door (or on your screen) asking about your health and your personal contacts is more likely to be successful than a phone vibrating in your pocket telling you that you make have come in contact with someone with COVID-19.

      There are also models for the caseworker and legal support component in the medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) that have emerged all around the U.S. in recent years. Driven by the recognition that illness—and healthcare costs—are shaped by factors that doctors alone cannot control (like access to safe housing and benefits), hospitals and non-profits around the country have hired legal professionals to assist clinicians, social workers, and case managers address larger structural issues affecting patients’ health and well-being. As of early 2019 there were MLPs active in about 330 hospitals and health centers in 46 states with evidence that MLPs can improve patient health outcomes and well-being, improve mental health, remove barriers to health care for low-income families, increase access to stable housing and other social support.

      The idea is to build on these successes, which operate in small and disjointed ways, by integrating them into a federally funded Works Progress Administration for the age of COVID-19 and its aftermath. It will require significant federal funding, especially as states are forced into austerity by plummeting tax revenues and balanced budget requirements. But the cost will be small compared to the recent $2 trillion stimulus. Reports show that we can scale up contact tracing for just a few billion dollars—a fraction of the bailout we’ve handed over to big businesses. Some in Congress have already seen the need, and a federal bill awaiting the president’s signature provides some funds that could go towards such jobs, along with the massive scale up in testing that we need—though not nearly enough. Even a vastly larger program, hiring five million Americans for the duration of the crisis, would still cost less than the corporate bailout. This is a deal, if we consider what it can do to help not only save lives but also help employ people and buffer us against economic depression.

      We could also mold the program to help shore up the present and future of those who are at grave risk, but not of dying from COVID-19. Many young people today are facing down a terrifying future. With more than twenty-six million unemployed and more to come, who will hire someone just out of high school? How will students get that first job to pay off their college loans?

      By whatever accident of grace, young people are least at risk of developing serious complications of COVID-19, making them an obvious priority for a jobs program. The staggering health disparities of the pandemic make another priority clear. We need care workers who are from, and trusted, in local communities, both to reach those most in need, and to help build resources and power in those same communities. We also should demand a program that can hire those who are hardest hit by this downturn, and who we’ve cast aside for too long.

      This means not focusing only on workers who are already highly skilled (much less volunteers, who will always skew toward those who need not worry about their daily bread). Some of these new recruits will need significant training, but we should not think of that as a problem—these are the same jobs we will need after COVID-19, and we have chronic shortages of exactly those skills nursing care and home health care workers that we will need to address this pandemic. And many of these jobs will use skills that come far more quickly: contact tracers can be trained in days, as can those who they will deliver food, masks, and hand sanitizer to families.

      We know from the work of those who study the impact of jobs guarantees—including programs that have been running for many years in other countries—that such programs can be scaled up quickly, and provide essential counter-cyclical stability, as well discipline the private labor market. Especially now, creating alternatives to exploitative jobs is urgent, the only right thing to do. Many “essential jobs”—in janitorial positions, as cashiers in grocery stores, delivery workers—look a lot like forced labor today. With few exceptions, if you quit, you aren’t eligible for unemployment, and other forms of support like those elusive $1200 checks are too small, and not available to many. A Community Health Corps could provide better jobs, driving up the pay of those workers that we call essential, but do not pay that way. If these Corps jobs stick around (folded in, perhaps, to a Medicare for All program), they can help not only address our needs for care, but also our needs for decent work—and our needs to benefit collectively from the talents of so many who are now relegated to the margins, locked up or tossed away. We can also build the Corps as a springboard for further training, where those who have served their country can be funneled into higher education, in a new GI Bill for the age of COVID-19.

      Getting back to normal was never going to be a solace for many in our country. Business as usual is precisely what has made us all more vulnerable to disasters like the one we are currently experiencing.
      The United States may have the most technologically advanced health care system in the world, but we’re leading the number of worldwide coronavirus cases because we’ve badly trailed other industrialized nations in health outcomes for years. Many of the hardest-hit communities in the COVID-19 pandemic have been reeling from long-term health crises, from the opioid epidemic and deaths of despair in Appalachia to the burden of maternal deaths and the ongoing HIV epidemic in the South, to an explosion of obesity across the country with its downstream effects: type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. The United States is sicker now with COVID-19, but we’ve been sick for long while in many other ways.

      Beyond helping to manage the current crisis, then, a Community Health Corps would help to improve the health of people historically left out of the circle of care. For too long we’ve focused at the top, spending on expensive, technologically advanced specialty care, while neglecting primary and community care and underpaying caregivers themselves. Even in the midst of the pandemic, community health centers, which should be the core of our health approach, have teetered on financial ruin. Meanwhile, the domestic workers and home health aides who perform the essential act of care have been underpaid and left out of federal labor protections. Not to mention that much of the work of caring is still done at home, falling disproportionately on women and people of color.

      Shoring up the foundations of U.S. health care by valuing care itself isn’t just the first step towards a more rapid, effective response to health threats in the future. It will also move us toward a new politics of care, that starts from the ground up, in the places, we live, work and socialize. A politics that builds power among the caregivers, as the act of caring becomes publicly recognized and compensated for the productive work it is. Done right—and without the racialized and gendered exclusions that characterized the WPA—these new jobs can be a source of power for those who have never been fully allowed a voice in our democracy.

      section separator

      To scale this up quickly, we will need to bring together organizations like Partners in Health, who are experienced at mobilizing in a community though largely in the global South, and who are trusted and effective in their work on health, with local organizations, working on civil, social and economic rights such as national groups like the Center for Popular Democracy and Community Change, and their diverse roster of local community organizations.

      Will it be easy to get our creaking, divided democracy to funnel resources into these programs? Probably not. But COVID-19 is conspiring to show us, all at once and in a way that no one can ignore, how central care is to a healthy society.
      Over the past four decades we’ve seen the erosion of government as a force for good in people’s lives, most often by design as conservatives have looked to shrink the state, weaken its effectiveness, and privatize its functions. Liberals have gone along and lost their faith in the kind of government that built their political base while helping millions in the modern era, starting with the New Deal, and the civil rights, social and economic programs that were the hallmark of the Great Society period in the 1960s. The U.S. state is so weak and untrusted right now that banks have had to take over as the vehicle for the provision of many of the billions just released under the emergency appropriations by Congress, as many Americans cursed the IRS because of delays in the small checks they were promised in COVID-19 relief.

      A Community Health Corps could be part of the remedy—in terms of the direct services and employment it could offer millions of Americans, in the ways in which this effort could lift up the health and well-being of so many, and also in terms of renewing faith in the power of government to help. The Corps would also be a prophylaxis—a first line in the response to the next challenges we face, whether it’s a seasonal return of COVID-19 or another pandemic, or the monumental troubles that climate change will rain down on our communities.

      It would also serve as a model, a test of one essential component of a Green New Deal: the creation of millions of good green jobs. Green jobs, after all, are not just in construction, and many directly benefit health. That is why the most compelling versions of such a proposal prioritize new care work jobs, as well as jobs restoring our trails and parks, and even making a place for the artists and writers whose work is some of the greatest legacy of the WPA. Some of these jobs might even be initiated as part of the Community Health Corps. With so little traffic on the roads, there is no better time to build bike lanes—and green housing too, if the safety of workers can be assured. Greening our cities and improving housing for low-income communities are an essential component of a healthier society, as well as a healthier planet. Climate change is the largest foreseeable threat to our health; we can start to address this looming crisis right now, as we combat this pandemic.

      We need more than a jobs program at this moment of national crisis, to be sure. We also need more SARS-COV-2 tests, more basic income, and better data about the pandemic, to name just a few. But rising up from under the cruel weight of this pandemic, we should also aim for something lasting and better. Getting back to normal was never going to be a solace for many in our country. Business as usual is precisely what has made us all more vulnerable to disasters like the one we are currently experiencing.

      Will it be easy to get our creaking, divided democracy to funnel resources into these programs? Probably not. But COVID-19 is conspiring to show us, all at once and in a way that no one can ignore, how central care—writ large, broadly conceived—is to a healthy society. Rudolf Virchow, the father of social medicine, once said: “Medicine is a social science and politics is nothing else but medicine on a large scale. Medicine as a social science, as the science of human beings, has the obligation to point out problems and to attempt their theoretical solution; the politician . . . must find the means for their actual solution.” A Community Health Corps is one actual solution, one place to start to build a new movement that heals us and our body politic, and that will allow us—all of us—to survive a pandemic, and then, to thrive.


      #soin #santé #politique_du_soin #santé_communautaire #pandémie #recherche_des_contacts #emploi #agents_de_santé_communautaire #aptitude_à_parler #médecine_sociale vs #solutionnisme_technologique #green_new_deal

  • Gaël Giraud : « Il est temps de relocaliser et de lancer une réindustrialisation verte de l’économie française »
    Par Eugénie Bastié | 10 avril 2020 à 13:53,

    FIGAROVOX/GRAND ENTRETIEN - L’économiste et ancien directeur de l’Agence française de développement (AFD) nous donne ses pistes pour sortir après le confinement de la plus grave crise économique depuis 1945. Il plaide pour un retour massif de l’Etat dans l’économie et l’annulation d’une partie de notre dette.

    • Gaël GIRAUD.- Le discours du 12 mars dernier du président de la République reprenait un thème présent depuis longtemps dans ses allocutions —la mise “hors marché” des biens communs, et la santé en est un — et semblait faire un réquisitoire contre sa propre politique. Le sens qu’il convient de donner à une parole est inséparable des actes qui l’accompagnent. Attendons les actes.

      On accuse volontiers les « dogmes néolibéraux » ou l’austérité budgétaire d’avoir ruiné les systèmes de santé des pays occidentaux. Cependant on voit aussi que les pays qui s’en sortent le mieux tels la Corée du sud, Taïwan, Singapour ou l’Allemagne sont aussi ceux qui disposent d’un Etat moderne, de finances publiques saines, d’une industrie puissante. Par railleurs, la France semble dépenser plus que la moyenne des pays de l’UE dans le système de santé. Faut-il vraiment accuser l’austérité ?

      Un peu de comptabilité nationale ne fait jamais de mal : la contribution des administrations publiques à la valeur ajoutée, et donc au PIB, est de l’ordre de 18,2% en France. Elle n’augmente quasiment pas depuis 1983. Les fameux 56,6% brandis trop souvent proviennent d’une erreur consistant à confondre la valeur ajoutée avec les dépenses de fonctionnement : les dépenses des ménages et des entreprises non financières représentent 150% du PIB mais cela n’inquiète personne, à juste titre, car tout le monde sait que ce ratio n’a pas de sens. Quant à nos dépenses publiques de santé, près des deux tiers alimentent la dépense privée : ce sont des revenus des professionnels de santé libéraux, des cliniques privées et des laboratoires pharmaceutiques.

      La Corée du sud, Taïwan et le Vietnam (dans une version non-démocratique) démontrent qu’un secteur public puissant étroitement articulé à un secteur industriel qui ne rêve pas de se délocaliser en Chine ou en Europe de l’Est sont les clefs du succès économique et sanitaire.

      Notre fiasco sanitaire me paraît d’abord dû à une culture comptable qui confond toujours la gestion de “bon père de famille” avec celle d’une Nation
      Alors quelles sont les raisons de notre fiasco sanitaire ?

      Notre fiasco sanitaire me paraît d’abord dû à une culture comptable qui confond toujours la gestion de “bon père de famille” avec celle d’une Nation : non, la macro-économie n’est pas de la micro-économie élargie car les dépenses des uns y font les revenus des autres (ce qui n’est pas vrai pour un ménage ou une entreprise). Et qui confond gestion intelligente avec réduction toujours et partout de la dépense publique à (très) court terme. Le stock (de masques), la réserve (d’enzymes) ne sont pas des immobilisations inutiles, de l’argent public dormant. Le budget de l’Etablissement de Préparation et de Réponse aux Urgences Sanitaires (EPRUS) créé en 2007 a été, depuis lors, divisé par dix. Résultat : par delà les morts, nous allons prendre au moins dix points supplémentaires de ratio dette publique sur PIB (un autre ratio qui n’a pas de sens) et cela fera hélas la démonstration que, jugé à l’aune de ses propres critères, cet “esprit comptable” conduit à sa propre défaite face au réel : la nécessaire explosion de la dépense publique et la destruction partielle de notre appareil productif pour sauver des vies. Mais ce n’est pas aujourd’hui l’heure des comptes. L’urgence est à la solidarité nationale avec nos compatriotes qui meurent chez eux, dans nos hôpitaux ou nos Ehpads et avec tous ceux qui souffriront de séquelles à vie. Cela doit passer par la réquisition des cliniques privées (comme en Espagne), la production de ventilateurs pour sauver des vies (comme aux Etats-Unis), de masques et matériel de dépistage sans lesquels aucun déconfinement ordonné n’est possible. (...)

      Le plus urgent, à la sortie du confinement, sera de remettre au #travail le plus grand nombre de nos compatriotes : en pratiquant des tests de dépistage aléatoires groupés pour circonscrire les risques de reprise de la contagion, en généralisant le port du masque pour tous et partout, en renforçant de toute urgence notre système sanitaire. Encore faut-il que les salariés d’hier retrouvent un travail. Le chômage partiel permet de freiner l’hémorragie mais nous n’avons pas encore les chiffres de la débâcle en matière d’emplois. Par ailleurs, le COVID19 peut malheureusement devenir une épidémie saisonnière (comme la grippe) et le réchauffement climatique risque de multiplier les pandémies tropicales. Reconduire le « monde d’hier », fondé sur la thermo-industrie et des économies de court terme faites sur le dos des services publics serait irrationnel. Il faut donc profiter du déconfinement pour inaugurer le « monde de demain ».

      #esprit_comptable #déconfinement #réindustrialisation_verte #marché_intérieur

  • What happens to freedom of movement during a pandemic ?

    Restrictions are particularly problematic for those who need to move in order to find safety, but whose elementary freedom to move had been curtailed long before the Covid-19 outbreak.

    The severe consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic dominate headlines around the globe and have drawn the public’s attention unlike any other issue or event. All over the world, societies struggle to respond and adapt to rapidly changing scenarios and levels of threat. Emergency measures have come to disrupt everyday life, international travel has largely been suspended, and many state borders have been closed. State leaders liken the fight against the virus to engaging in warfare – although it is clear that the parallel is misleading and that those involved in the “war” are not soldiers but simply citizens. The situation is grim, and it would be a serious mistake to underestimate the obvious danger of infection, loss of life, the collapse of health services and the economy. Nonetheless, there is a need to stress that this phase of uncertainty entails also the risk of normalising ‘exceptional’ policies that restrict freedoms and rights in the name of crisis and public safety - and not only in the short term.

    “Of all the specific liberties which may come into mind when we hear the word “freedom””, philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote, the “freedom of movement is historically the oldest and also the most elementary.” However, in times of a pandemic, human movements turn increasingly into a problem. The elementary freedom to move is said to be curtailed for the greater good, particularly for the elderly and others in high-risk groups. (Self-)confinement appears key – “inessential” movements and contact with others are to be avoided. In China, Italy and elsewhere, hard measures have been introduced and their violation can entail severe penalties. Movements from A to B need (state) authorisation and unsanctioned movements can be punished. There are good reasons for that, no doubt. Nevertheless, there is a need to take stock of the wider implications of our current predicament.

    In this general picture, current restrictions on movement are problematic for people who do not have a home and for whom self-quarantine is hardly an option, for people with disability who remain without care, and for people, mostly women, whose home is not a safe haven but the site of insecurity and domestic abuse. Restrictions are also particularly problematic for those whose elementary freedom to move had been curtailed long before the Covid-19 outbreak but who need to move in order to find safety. Migrants embody in the harshest way the contradictions and tensions surrounding the freedom of movement and its denial today. It is not surprising that in the current climate, they tend to become one of the first targets of the most restrictive measures.
    Migrant populations who moved, or still seek to move, across borders without authorisation in order to escape danger are subjected to confinement and deterrence measures that are legitimized by often spurious references to public safety and global health. Discriminatory practices that segregate in the name of safety turn those at risk into a risk. “We are fighting a two-front war”, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban declared, “one front is called migration, and the other one belongs to the coronavirus, there is a logical connection between the two, as both spread with movement.” The danger of conflating the declared war on the pandemic with a war on migration is great, and the human costs are high. Restrictive border measures endanger the lives of vulnerable populations for whom movement is a means of survival.

    About two weeks ago, it was documented that the Greek coastguard opened fire on migrants trying to escape via the Aegean Sea and the land border between Turkey and Greece. Some people died while many were injured in a hyperbolic deployment of border violence. The European reaction, as embodied in the person of European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, was to refer to Greece as Europe’s “shield”. About a week ago, it was uncovered that a migrant boat with 49 people on board which had already reached a European search and rescue zone was returned to Libya through coordinated measures taken by the EU border agency Frontex, the Armed Forces of Malta, and Libyan authorities. In breach of international law and of the principle of non-refoulement, the people were returned to horrid migrant camps in Libya, a country still at war. With no NGO rescuers currently active in the Mediterranean due to the effects of the Coronavirus, more than 400 people were intercepted at sea and forcibly returned to Libya over the past weekend alone, over 2,500 this year.

    Such drastic migration deterrence and containment measures endanger the lives of those ‘on the move’ and exacerbate the risk of spreading the virus. In Libyan camps, in conditions that German diplomats once referred to as “concentration-camp-like”, those imprisoned often have extremely weakened immune systems, often suffering from illnesses like tuberculosis. A Coronavirus outbreak here would be devastating. Doctors without Borders have called for the immediate evacuation of the hotspot camps on the Greek Islands, highlighting that the cramped and unhygienic conditions there would “provide the perfect storm for a COVID-19 outbreak”. This is a more general situation in detention camps for migrants throughout Europe and elsewhere, as it is in ‘regular’ prisons worldwide.

    Together with the virus, a politics of fear spreads across the world and prompts ever-more restrictive measures. Besides the detrimental consequences of curtailing the freedom to move already experienced by the most vulnerable, the worry is that many of these measures will continue to undermine rights and freedoms even long after the pandemic has been halted. And yet, while, as Naomi Klein notes, “a pandemic shock doctrine” may allow for the enactment of “all the most dangerous ideas lying around, from privatizing Social Security to locking down borders to caging even more migrants”, we agree with her that “the end of this story hasn’t been written yet.”

    The situation is volatile – how it ends depends also on us and how we collectively mobilize against the now rampant authoritarian tendencies. All around us, we see other reactions to the current predicament with new forms of solidarity emerging and creative ways of taking care of “the common”. The arguments are on our side. The pandemic shows that a global health crisis cannot be solved through nationalistic measures but only through international solidarity and cooperation – the virus does not respect borders.

    Its devastating effects strengthen the call to universal health care and the value of care work, which continues to be disproportionately women’s work. The pandemic gives impetus to those who demand the right to shelter and affordable housing for all and provides ammunition to those who have long struggled against migrant detention camps and mass accommodations, as well as against migrant deportations. It exposes the ways that the predatory capitalist model, often portrayed as commonsensical and without alternatives, provides no answers to a global health crisis while socialist models do. It shows that resources can be mobilized if the political will exists and that ambitious policies such the Green New Deal are far from being ‘unrealistic’. And, the Coronavirus highlights how important the elementary freedom of movement continues to be.
    The freedom of movement, of course, also means having the freedom not to move. And, at times, even having the freedom to self-confine. For many, often the most vulnerable and disenfranchised, this elementary freedom is not given. This means that even during a pandemic, we need to stand in solidarity with those who take this freedom to move, who can no longer remain in inhumane camps within Europe or at its external borders and who try to escape to find safety. Safety from war and persecution, safety from poverty and hunger, safety from the virus. In this period in which borders multiply, the struggle around the elementary freedom of movement will continue to be both a crucial stake and a tool in the fight against global injustice, even, or particularly, during a global health crisis.


    #liberté_de_circulation #liberté_de_mouvement #coronavirus #épidémie #pandémie #frontières #virus #mobilité #mobilité_humaine #migrations #confinement #autorisation #restrictions_de_mouvement #guerre #guerre_aux_migrants #guerre_au_virus #danger #fermeture_des_frontières #pandemic_shock_doctrine #stratégie_du_choc #autoritarisme #solidarité #solidarité_internationale #soins_de_santé_universels #universalisme #nationalisme #capitalisme #socialisme #Green_New_Deal #immobilité #vulnérabilité #justice #Sandro_Mezzadra #Maurice_Stierl

    via @isskein
    ping @karine4

  • #Pierre_Charbonnier : « Mon principal espoir est que le zadiste, le jacobin écolo et le #technocrate_radicalisé pactisent »


    Les arrangements #techno-politiques des Trente Glorieuses ont permis une amélioration de la condition sociale pour beaucoup de gens mais aujourd’hui, outre le fait qu’à l’échelle globale ils ont été très injustes, ce sont précisément les idéologies anti-démocratiques voire proto-fascistes qui renaissent pour prolonger l’utopie de la croissance infinie. On peut difficilement trouver un paradoxe historique plus parlant : ce qui a été mis en place pour nous protéger des grandes explosions politiques est en train d’en provoquer une nouvelle.

    « Les arrangements techno-politiques des #Trente_Glorieuses ont permis une amélioration de la condition sociale pour beaucoup de gens mais aujourd’hui, outre le fait qu’à l’échelle globale ils ont été très injustes, ce sont précisément les idéologies anti-démocratiques voire proto-fascistes qui renaissent pour prolonger l’utopie de la #croissance_infinie. On peut difficilement trouver un paradoxe historique plus parlant : ce qui a été mis en place pour nous protéger des grandes explosions politiques est en train d’en provoquer une nouvelle.« 

  • La nouvelle phase « verte » du capitalisme et son avant-garde
    "écologique et citoyenne"...

    Miquel Amorós est un intellectuel écolibertaire espagnol connu entre
    autres pour ses analyses mettant en lumière les contradictions et la
    fausse radicalité parmi les militants écologistes et d’extrème gauche
    (y compris anarchistes).

    Un très grand nombre de listes candidates aux élections municipales se
    disent "écologistes et citoyennes".

    Leurs candidat(e)s ainsi que leurs supporters (et trices) devraient lire ce texte ;-)


    • Le texte est bien écrit mais c’est une opposition somme toute classique entre réforme et révolution avec un côté assez (de façon caricaturale) marxiste : la révolution viendra toute seule suite aux contradictions du capitalisme qui le feront s’écrouler.

    • Encore une lecture de travers, que ce soit du courant anti-industriel ou de la critique de la valeur etc : à aucun moment ni les uns ni les autres ne disent que la révolution viendra toute seule, mais que les insurrections, le bordel, etc, va arriver tellement ce sera dur de continuer à vivre sous ce mode de vie (et c’est déjà largement le cas, un peu partout dans le monde, ce n’est pas du tout « dans le futur »).

      Mais cela n’implique en rien du tout que ça va être mieux ensuite, puisque ça peut parfaitement aboutir à un monde plus barbare, ou à mettre au pouvoir une autre caste de sauveurs à la place de l’ancienne, plutôt que de chercher à vivre plus libres, plus autonomes, aussi bien matériellement que politiquement.

      Et pour ce texte précisément, la conclusion est très claire : « Si la société civile parvient à s’organiser en dehors des institutions et des bureaucraties ». Sinon non. Donc aucune super révolution obligatoire mécaniquement.

    • #Green_New_Deal
      Voir peut-être aussi : https://seenthis.net/messages/814673

      A propos de « XR », un collectif appelé « the Wretched of the Earth » (les Damné·es de la Terre) avait publié une lettre ouverte adressée à la soit disant « rebellion » :


      @val_k en avait fait une traduction écrite et audio en français et l’avait publiée sur archive.org. Mais comme je suis infoutu d’en retrouver le lien, je pose son texte ici :

      Lettre ouverte à Extinction Rebellion
      "La lutte pour la justice climatique est le combat de nos vies, et nous devons le faire correctement."

      Lettre des collectifs formant Les Damnés de la Terre (Wretched of The Earth) publié sur le site du magazine Red Pepper le 3 mai 2019.
      Wretched of The Earth est un collectif communautaire anglais pour les groupes et les peuples indigènes, noirs, métisses et de la diaspora qui réclament la justice climatique et qui agissent en solidarité, tant au Royaume-Uni que dans le Sud.
      Cette lettre a été écrite en collaboration avec des dizaines de groupes alliés. Alors que s’achevaient les semaines d’action appelées par Extinction Rebellion, nos groupes se sont réunis pour réfléchir sur le récit, les stratégies, les tactiques et les revendications d’un mouvement climatique revigoré au Royaume-Uni. Dans cette lettre, nous formulons un ensemble de principes et de demandes fondamentaux enracinés dans la justice et nous considérons comme crucial que le mouvement tout entier en tienne compte alors que nous continuons à élaborer une réponse à "l’urgence climatique".

      Cher Extinction Rebellion,

      L’émergence d’un mouvement de masse comme Extinction Rebellion (XR) est le signe encourageant que nous avons atteint un moment propice dans lequel il existe à la fois une conscience collective de l’immense danger qui nous attend et une volonté collective de le combattre. Une masse critique est d’accord avec la lettre ouverte qui lance XR quand elle déclare : « Si nous continuons sur notre voie, l’avenir de notre espèce est sombre. »

      Dans le même temps, pour construire un avenir différent, voire même pour l’imaginer, nous devons comprendre ce qu’est cette « voie » et comment nous en sommes arrivés a un monde tel que nous le connaissons maintenant. « La Vérité » de la crise écologique est que nous ne sommes pas arrivés ici par une série de petites erreurs, mais que nous avons été poussés par des forces puissantes qui ont conduit la répartition des ressources de la planète entière et la structuration de nos sociétés. Les structures économiques qui nous dominent ont été créées par des projets coloniaux dont le seul but est la poursuite de la domination et du profit. Pendant des siècles, le racisme, le sexisme et le classisme ont été nécessaires pour que ce système soit maintenu et ont façonné les conditions dans lesquelles nous nous trouvons.

      Une autre vérité est que pour beaucoup, l’austérité n’appartient pas à « l’avenir ». Pour ceux d’entre nous qui sont indigènes, de la classe ouvrière, noirs, métisses, queer, trans ou handicapés, l’expérience de la violence structurelle est une partie intégrante de notre droit de naissance. Greta Thunberg appelle les dirigeants mondiaux à agir en leur rappelant que « notre maison est en feu ». Pour beaucoup d’entre nous, la maison est en feu depuis longtemps : chaque fois que la vague de violence écologique monte, nos communautés, en particulier dans les pays du Sud, sont toujours les premières touchées. Nous sommes les premiers à faire face à une mauvaise qualité de l’air, à la faim, aux crises de santé publique, à la sécheresse, aux inondations et aux déplacements.

      XR déclare que « la science est claire : il est entendu que nous sommes confrontés à une urgence mondiale sans précédent. Nous nous trouvons dans une situation de vie ou de mort. Nous devons agir maintenant. » Vous ne réaliserez peut-être pas que lorsque vous vous concentrez sur la science, vous passez souvent à côté du feu et de nous - vous passez à côté de nos histoires de lutte, de dignité, de victoire et de résilience. Et vous passez à côté de la vaste connaissance intergénérationnelle de l’unité avec la nature qu’ont nos peuples. Les communautés indigènes nous rappellent que nous ne sommes pas séparés de la nature et que protéger l’environnement, c’est aussi nous protéger. Pour survivre, les communautés des pays du Sud continuent à projeter la vision et la construction de nouveaux mondes libres de la violence du capitalisme. Nous devons à la fois nous concentrer sur ces expériences et reconnaître ces savoirs là.

      Nos communautés sont en feu depuis longtemps et ces flammes sont attisées par notre exclusion et notre silenciation. Sans intégration de nos expériences, toute réponse à cette catastrophe ne changera pas la manière complexe dont les systèmes sociaux, économiques et politiques façonnent nos vies - offrant à certains un passage facile dans la vie en en faisant supporter le coût à d’autres. Pour envisager un avenir dans lequel nous serons tous libérés des causes profondes de la crise climatique - capitalisme, extractivisme, racisme, sexisme, classisme, capacitisme et autres systèmes d’oppression - le mouvement pour le climat doit refléter les réalités complexes de la vie de chacun dans leur narration.

      Et cette complexité doit également être répercutée dans les stratégies. Beaucoup d’entre nous sont exposés au risque d’arrestation et de criminalisation. Nous devons peser avec soin les coûts qui peuvent être infligés à nous et à nos communautés par un État qui est déterminé à cibler ceux qui sont racialisés avant ceux qui sont blancs. La stratégie de XR, avec comme tactique première d’être arrêté, est valable - mais elle doit être soutendue par une analyse continue de son privilège ainsi que de la réalité de la violence de la police et de l’État. Les participants XR devraient utiliser leur privilège de pouvoir risquer une arrestation tout en soulignant la nature racialisée du maintien de l’ordre. Bien qu’une partie de cette analyse ait commencé à être réalisée, tant qu’elle n’est pas au cœur de l’organisation de XR, ce n’est pas suffisant. Pour faire face au changement climatique et à ses racines dans les inégalités et la domination, il faudra une diversité et une pluralité de tactiques et de communautés afin de co-créer le changement transformateur nécessaire.

      Nous saluons l’énergie et l’enthousiasme que XR a apporté au mouvement écologiste, et cela nous donne l’espoir de voir autant de personnes prêtes à agir. Mais comme nous l’avons souligné ici, nous estimons que certains aspects essentiels de leur approche doivent évoluer. Cette lettre appelle XR à faire davantage dans l’esprit de ses principes, qui disent qu’ils « travaillent à la construction d’un mouvement participatif, décentralisé et inclusif ». Nous savons que XR a déjà organisé divers exercices d’écoute et a reconnu certaines des lacunes de son approche. Nous espérons donc que XR et ses membres apprécieront notre contribution.

      Alors que XR achève cette période d’actions, nous espérons que notre lettre propose quelques réflexions utiles pour la suite des choses. La liste des demandes que nous présentons ci-dessous ne prétend pas être exhaustive, mais offrir un point de départ qui souligne les conversations dont nous avons un besoin urgent.

      Les Damnés de la Terre (Wretched of the Earth) ainsi que de nombreux autres groupes, considèrent les revendications suivantes comme cruciales pour la rébellion de justice climatique :

       Mettre en œuvre une transition axée sur la justice afin de réduire à zéro les émissions de carbone du Royaume-Uni d’ici 2030, dans le cadre de sa juste part pour maintenir le réchauffement en dessous de 1,5 ° C ; cela comprend l’arrêt de tous les projets de fracturation, la gratuité des solutions de transport et du logement décent, la réglementation et la démocratisation des entreprises et la restauration des écosystèmes.

       Passer un Nouveau Pacte Vert Mondial pour assurer le financement et la technologie des pays du Sud grâce à la coopération internationale. La justice climatique doit inclure les réparations et la redistribution ; une économie plus verte en Grande-Bretagne obtiendra très peu de résultats si le gouvernement continue d’empêcher les pays vulnérables de faire de même avec une dette écrasante, des accords commerciaux inéquitables et l’exportation de ses propres industries extractivistes mortelles. Ce "Green New Deal" inclurait également la fin du commerce des armes. Les guerres ont été créées pour servir les intérêts des entreprises - les plus grandes transactions d’armes ont livré du pétrole ; tandis que les plus grandes armées du monde sont les plus grandes consommatrices d’essence.

       Tenir les sociétés transnationales pour responsables de leurs actes en créant un système qui les réglemente et les empêche de pratiquer la destruction mondiale. Cela impliquerait de se débarrasser de nombreux accords de commerce et d’investissement existants qui consacrent la volonté de ces sociétés transnationales.

       Retirer la planète des marchés boursiers en restructurant le secteur financier pour le rendre transparent, démocratisé et durable, tout en décourageant les investissements dans les industries extractives et en subventionnant les programmes relatifs aux énergies renouvelables, la justice écologique et les programmes de régénération.

       Mettre fin à l’environnement hostile des murs et des clôtures, des centres de détention et des prisons utilisés contre les communautés racialisées, migrantes et réfugiées. Au lieu de cela, le Royaume-Uni devrait reconnaître ses responsabilités historiques et actuelles dans la conduite du déplacement des peuples et des communautés et honorer ses obligations à leur égard.

       Garantir des communautés florissantes dans les pays du Nord et du Sud dans lesquelles tout le monde a droit à une éducation gratuite, à un revenu suffisant, qu’il soit au travail ou non, à des soins de santé universels, y compris un soutien au bien-être mental, des transports abordables, une alimentation saine à prix abordable, un emploi et logement digne, une participation politique significative, un système de justice transformatrice, les libertés liées au genre et à la sexualité et, pour les personnes handicapées et les personnes âgées, de vivre de manière autonome dans la communauté.

      La lutte pour la justice climatique est la lutte de nos vies et nous devons la mener correctement. Nous partageons cette réflexion d’un lieu d’amour et de solidarité, de groupes et de réseaux travaillant avec des communautés en première ligne, unis dans l’esprit de construire un mouvement pour la justice climatique qui ne fasse pas payer les plus pauvres des pays riches pour faire face à la crise climatique, et refuse de sacrifier les peuples du Sud pour protéger les citoyens du Nord. Il est essentiel que nous restions responsables devant nos communautés et envers tous ceux qui n’ont pas accès aux centres de pouvoir.
      Sans cette responsabilité, l’appel à la justice climatique est vide.

      Les Damnés de la Terre (Wretched of the Earth).

    • @rastapopoulos
      Tu cites la dernière phrase qui effectivement commence par un conditionnel précautionneux mais juste avant voilà ce qui est écrit :

      Le jour où le système techno-industriel — géré par les marchés ou par l’État —, cessera de répondre aux besoins d’une partie importante de la population ou, en d’autres termes, lorsque les conditions météorologiques ou quelque autre facteur enrayera l’approvisionnement, viendra le temps des insurrections. Un système défaillant, qui entrave la mobilité de ses sujets et les menace de mort par inanition n’a pas d’avenir. Il est probable que, dans le feu de l’action, des structures communautaires — fondamentales pour assurer l’autonomie des révoltes — seront reconstruites.

      Si c’est pas du messianisme révolutionnaire ça, alors c’est que je ne sais vraiment pas lire. Ce qui me frappe vraiment dans ce genre de littérature, c’est qu’à part conchier les trucs réformistes (certes souvent avec des raisons valables) rien n’est vraiment construit ce qui fait qu’au final on a juste l’impression que l’unique but est donc vraiment de conchier les trucs réformistes (et pour se justifier on dit qu’un jour y aura l’insurrection... et voilà). La présentation de l’auteur et du texte fait par @marclaime ne dit pas autre chose. On a déjà vu ça dans le militantisme trotskiste (et sûrement d’autres courants) qui passait son temps à décrier les autres sectes du même acabit qu’eux même, ce serait bien de ne pas recommencer (ou continuer)...

    • J’insiste : si tu confonds « insurrection » et « révolution », ya clairement un problème de lecture important… :)

      Il n’y a aucun messianisme dans ta citation, c’est un fait établi qu’il y a déjà des insurrections un peu partout, dès que les gens ont faim, n’arrivent plus à joindre les deux bouts, n’arrivent plus à vivre la vie que nous fait mener le capitalisme. La question c’est une fois qu’on s’est insurgé, qu’est-ce qui advient ? Et là il n’y a aucune assurance que ça aboutisse à quelque chose de positif, d’émancipateur, et cela dépend de la condition que j’ai cité plus haut.

      1) Vie tellement pourrie qu’on n’arrive même plus à subvenir aux besoins de base (manger, habiter, etc) => insurrection.
      2) Si on parvient à s’organiser de manière autonome (aussi bien politiquement : anarchisme, que matériellement : sans être dépendants d’industries énormes) => révolution.

      L’un est totalement sûr et déjà le cas un peu partout dans le monde, l’autre est totalement incertain et ça peut parfaitement aboutir à plus de barbarie (daesh, régimes autoritaires, etc).

    • C’est sûrement une question de vocabulaire mais cela dit je ne déclarerais pas que c’est « totalement sûr » que les insurrections adviendront de façon systématique. Pour parler de ce qui se passe chez nous, cela dépend par exemple si on considère que le mouvement des gilets jaunes est une insurrection ou une simple révolte d’une petite fraction de la population. Je dis ça car je travaille dans une petite entreprise et c’est tout simplement incroyable de constater la veulerie dont peuvent faire preuve la plupart de mes collègues (tous méprisants envers les gilets jaunes, ricanant quand les manifestations contre la réforme des retraites passent devant l’entreprise... Et j’ai vu ça dans d’autres emplois, généralement au mieux on a le droit à de l’indifférence). Bref, on peut très bien passer directement à la case dictature sans passer par la case insurrection/révolution, c’était le sens de mon commentaire précédent.

  • « Green New Deal » : comment transposer les propositions d’AOC en Europe - Page 1 | Mediapart

    Ce dernier élément est clé. La garantie de l’emploi est l’articulation nécessaire entre l’ambition environnementale et l’exigence sociale qui est au cœur du projet. De quoi s’agit-il ? Comme cela a déjà été expliqué sur Mediapart, il s’agit de fournir un emploi rémunéré à un salaire « décent » à tous ceux qui désirent travailler. Dans l’esprit du « Green New Deal », ces emplois sont financés par le gouvernement, mais déterminés par les collectivités locales en fonction de leurs besoins. C’est, au reste, un des éléments les plus importants de ce projet : la proposition d’emploi garanti s’accompagne d’une définition des besoins, notamment en matière écologique, mais pas seulement. Or, cette réflexion est indispensable au combat commun contre le réchauffement climatique et les inégalités.

    #green_new_deal #mmt #CGT #ATTAC #Greenpeace #OCS

  • Main basse sur l’#eau | ARTE

    Le prometteur marché de l’eau s’annonce comme le prochain casino mondial. Les géants de la finance se battent déjà pour s’emparer de ce nouvel « or bleu ». Enquête glaçante sur la prochaine bulle spéculative.

    Réchauffement climatique, pollution, pression démographique, extension des surfaces agricoles : partout dans le monde, la demande en eau explose et l’offre se raréfie. En 2050, une personne sur quatre vivra dans un pays affecté par des pénuries. Après l’or et le pétrole, l’"or bleu", ressource la plus convoitée de la planète, attise les appétits des géants de la #finance, qui parient sur sa valeur en hausse, source de #profits mirobolants. Aujourd’hui, des #banques et fonds de placements – Goldman Sachs, HSBC, UBS, Allianz, la Deutsche Bank ou la BNP – s’emploient à créer des #marchés porteurs dans ce secteur et à spéculer, avec, étrangement, l’appui d’ONG écologistes. Lesquelles achètent de l’eau « pour la restituer à la nature », voyant dans ce nouvel ordre libéral un moyen de protéger l’environnement.

    En Australie, continent le plus chaud de la planète, cette #marchandisation de l’eau a pourtant déjà acculé des fermiers à la faillite, au profit de l’#agriculture_industrielle, et la Californie imite ce modèle. Face à cette redoutable offensive, amorcée en Grande-Bretagne dès #Thatcher, la résistance citoyenne s’organise pour défendre le droit à l’eau pour tous et sanctuariser cette ressource vitale limitée, dont dépendront 10 milliards d’habitants sur Terre à l’horizon 2050.

    De l’Australie à l’Europe en passant par les États-Unis, cette investigation décrypte pour la première fois les menaces de la glaçante révolution en cours pour les populations et la planète. Nourri de témoignages de terrain, le film montre aussi le combat, à la fois politique, économique et environnemental, que se livrent les apôtres de la #financiarisation de l’eau douce et ceux, simples citoyens ou villes européennes, qui résistent à cette dérive, considérant son accès comme un droit universel, d’ailleurs reconnu par l’#ONU en 2010. Alors que la bataille de la #gratuité est déjà perdue, le cynisme des joueurs de ce nouveau #casino mondial, au sourire carnassier, fait frémir, l’un d’eux lâchant : « Ce n’est pas parce que l’eau est la vie qu’elle ne doit pas avoir un prix. »

  • Attention ! Ce blog « carbure » au #nihilisme.

    Où l’on déconstruit l’idéologie du #green_new_deal en égratignant au passage son égérie suédoise en laissant les lecteur·rices sur leurs « fins ». Le communisme pourra-t-il mieux faire ? Pas si sûr ...
    (Je vous en propose ci-dessous le passage émotionnellement le plus neutre).

    Le vert est la couleur du dollar. A propos de Greta et de la transition technologique – carbure

    Le capitalisme n’est pas une technostructure qui finirait par devenir obsolète et par s’arrêter faute de matières premières, mais un rapport social d’exploitation, c’est-à-dire une domination de classe fondée sur l’extraction de plus-value qui veut se maintenir pour elle-même, quelles que soient les conditions et l’arrière-plan catastrophique ou non de cette domination. La catastrophe écologique et les perturbations sociales qu’elle risque d’entraîner ne constituent pas une remise en cause de ce rapport en tant que tel, à moins de considérer que l’essence du capital repose dans une bonne vie bien organisée : elle vient simplement s’ajouter aux conditions de crise. Dans ces circonstances, que quelques personnes possédant du terrain parviennent à pratiquer la permaculture entre elles ou à mettre des revenus en commun n’a rien d’impossible, tant qu’elles ont les moyens de payer et que l’Etat ne les considère pas comme une menace (ce qui inscrit leur absolue marginalité dans la liste de leurs conditions nécessaires d’existence). Et outre la question de la possibilité de ces expériences, on peut aussi se demander si elles sont bien désirables : l’importance du patrimoine foncier dans ce genre d’alternatives, telles qu’elles peuvent déjà exister, et l’exploitation des plus précaires par de petits propriétaires peuvent nous donner une idée de la structure de classe qui s’y dessine. La classe moyenne n’a jamais rien fait d’autre que tenter de s’extraire, même précairement, de la condition commune : qu’elle vote ou qu’elle plante des choux, cela n’a jamais rien changé à quelque catastrophe que ce soit. Il n’y a rien d’étonnant à ce que même à la dernière extrémité, en une ultime robinsonnade, elle ne parvienne pas à imaginer autre chose que ce qu’elle connaît, et préfère considérer que la catastrophe est inévitable qu’envisager le dépassement des rapports sociaux qui la constituent comme classe.

    #critique_de_la_valeur #marchandisation #communisme #communisation #capitalisme #lutte_des_classes

  • Bernie Sanders and AOC Want to Commit $180 Billion to Turn Public Housing Green – Mother Jones

    On Thursday, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a new bill that would dedicate billions of dollars to energy retrofits for America’s dilapidated public housing stock. The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act would commit up to $180 billion over 10 years to upgrading 1.2 million federally owned homes.

    At a press conference outside the Capitol on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez said a bill focused on public housing reflects the larger aim of the Green New Deal to prioritize “frontline communities”—those that are most likely to be harmed by the climate crisis. “In the Bronx alone, 2,400 public housing residents may be going without heat tonight. That is inhumane,” she said. “That is environmental injustice.”

    The bill is an effort to bag two birds with one stone. America’s public housing portfolio is in a shambles, with deferred maintenance costs nationwide running into the billions. The bill introduced by AOC and Sanders would bring that backlog up to date while also reducing the energy consumption from this aging housing stock.

    Overall, buildings are responsible for about 39 percent of global carbon emissions, and about one-third of emissions in the U.S. That puts energy retrofits front and center in debates about how to arrest climate change.

    “If we have to do all of this work anyway, what would it cost to take this a step further and do deep energy retrofits that get the nation’s entire public housing stock at or near a net-zero standard?” Fleming said.

    The bill, which is cosponsored by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, would create some 250,000 jobs—including high-paying jobs and union jobs, as the proposal’s backers are quick to point out. Some of these would benefit public housing residents themselves. A bill that would actually put severely delayed federal upgrades into motion would not only spur new opportunities, it would promote economies of scale to boost industries in weatherization and energy retrofits, its backers say.

    “Policies such as this which protect the needs of workers, taxpayers and community should be implemented wherever public funds are spent,” said Mike Prohaska, business manager for New York’s Construction & General Building Laborers Local 79, in a statement.

    The bill would have a seismic impact in New York City, where the nation’s largest public housing agency faces deferred maintenance costs of nearly $32 billion. Federal prosecutors accused the New York City Housing Authority of “systematic misconduct, indifference and outright lies” following an investigation into elevated blood lead levels among public housing residents. A local solution to the city’s public housing crisis looks impossible. In fact, earlier this year, HUD Secretary Ben Carson named a federal monitor to oversee the the New York City Housing Authority.

    The AOC–Sanders bill also promotes public housing as a goal in itself. A provision of the bill would repeal the Faircloth Amendment, a federal rule that caps the construction of new public housing units. Data for Progress has outlined a vision for a progressive housing agenda that leans heavily on public housing and other goals that current federal law (and federal funding levels) make difficult or impossible. People’s Action, a grassroots group, introduced a policy platform called the Homes Guarantee that outlines many of the same goals.

    Housing has emerged as a high-profile issue in the Democratic primary, with numerous candidates touting a range of plans and reforms. In the fall, Ocasio-Cortez produced her own suite of protections for tenants, immigrants, children, and others, most notably a proposal for a national rent control policy. The left has found a policy arena in which they have common ground with establishment Democrats—at least in terms of big-sky proposals.

    #Green_New_Deal#Logement #Alexandria_Ocasio_Cortez #Bernie_Sanders #Ecologie #Economie #Logement_social

  • La jet-set des escrologistes, par Nicolas Casaux

    Dans le monde anglophone (et parfois aussi dans le monde francophone, pour certains, dont le travail est traduit en français) : George Monbiot, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben. Dans le monde francophone : Nicolas Hulot, Cyril Dion, Aurélien Barrau, Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Isabelle Delannoy, Maxime De Rostolan. Il y en a d’autres.

    Habitués des #médias de masse, ils tiennent des #discours qui, malgré quelques différences ou nuances, forment une même et unique perspective, correspondant à la définition grand public de l’écologisme.

    Ladite perspective s’appuie sur une évaluation très partielle de la situation. Sur le plan écologique, elle tend à réduire les nombreux aspects de la #catastrophe en cours à un problème de taux de #carbone dans l’atmosphère (réchauffement climatique), et de « ressources naturelles » que la civilisation (industrielle) doit — condition sine qua non de sa perpétuation, leur ambition principale — s’efforcer de mieux gérer. Que les autres êtres vivants, les autres espèces et les communautés biotiques qu’elles forment possèdent une valeur intrinsèque, ne se réduisent pas à de simples « ressources », est rarement évoqué.

    Sur le plan social, lorsqu’ils soulignent des problèmes, nos #escrologistes pointent du doigt les #inégalités économiques ou le chômage. Certains vont jusqu’à dire du mal du capitalisme, mais ne critiquent en réalité que certains excès du système économique dominant. D’autres fois, ils dénoncent, plus honnêtement, quelque « #capitalisme dérégulé » ou « débridé » (Naomi Klein dans "Tout peut changer"). Mais ils ne parlent que très rarement, voire pas du tout, des injustices fondamentales que constituent la #propriété privée, la division hiérarchique du travail, le #travail en tant que concept capitaliste, des rapports de #domination qu’implique une organisation technique de la #société — la bureaucratie, l’État. Ils n’expliquent jamais, ou très rarement et très timidement, sans rien en tirer, qu’à l’instar de l’État en tant que forme d’organisation sociale, les régimes électoraux modernes n’ont rien de démocratique, qu’ils relèvent plutôt de l’#aristocratie élective, et que leur fonctionnement est clairement verrouillé, garanti et gardé par divers mécanismes coercitifs, y compris par la #violence physique.

    Ils se contentent d’en appeler à une sorte de nouvelle révolution verte, au moyen d’un new deal vert (Green New Deal) qu’agenceraient les gouvernants. Car aux yeux de nos escrologistes, il s’agit toujours de compter, pour sauver la situation — pardon, la #civilisation, mais aussi la planète, prétendument, puisqu’il est possible et souhaitable, d’après eux, de tout avoir — sur les dirigeants étatiques ou d’entreprise. New deal vert censé permettre de créer des tas d’emplois verts, au sein d’entreprises vertes, dirigées par des patrons verts — une exploitation verte, une #servitude verte —, de donner forme à une civilisation industrielle verte dotée de commodités technologiques vertes, smartphones verts, voitures vertes, etc., alimentés par des énergies vertes, et ainsi de suite (on parle désormais, de plus en plus, d’énergies "non-carbonées" plutôt que d’énergies "vertes", ce qui permet, à l’aide d’un autre #mensonge, de faire rentrer le #nucléaire dans le lot ; partout, vous pouvez remplacer "vert" par "non-carboné" ou "zéro carbone", ou "carboneutre", l’absurdité est la même).

    Au bout du compte, leur #réformisme à la noix vise uniquement à repeindre en vert le désastre en cours : repeindre en vert les oppressions, les dominations, les injustices. À faire croire qu’il est possible de rendre verte, durable, la civilisation technologique moderne — une rassurance dont on comprend aisément pourquoi elle est la bienvenue dans les médias de masse, pourquoi elle plait à tous ceux dont c’est la principale ambition. Un mensonge grossier : rien de ce qu’ils qualifient de vert ne l’est réellement. Une promesse creuse et, au point où nous en sommes rendus, criminelle. Affirmer, en 2019, comme le fait Aurélien Barrau dans son livre de promotion de l’écologie, pardon, de l’#escrologie, que ce qu’il faut, c’est "que nous nous engagions solennellement à ne plus élire quiconque ne mettrait pas en œuvre des mesures fermes" (pour tout repeindre en vert), "que les citoyens n’envisagent même plus de choisir pour représentant quiconque ne s’engagerait pas" (à tout repeindre en vert), zut alors.

    On peut croire à tout ça. C’est très con, mais on peut y croire. Surtout lorsqu’on fait partie des puissants, de ceux qui tirent leur épingle du désastre actuel — mais pas seulement, puisque, conditionnement aidant (c’est à ça que servent nos escrologistes) c’est même la religion dominante.

    Mais comment font certains pour continuer à dire que nous voulons tous la même chose, que nous devrions cesser de critiquer ces #éco-charlatans parce que nous voulons comme eux au bout du compte, que nous sommes tous pareils, etc. ?!


  • Environnement-Débat. « Naomi Klein sait qu’un Green New Deal est notre seul espoir contre la catastrophe climatique » | A l’encontre

    D’un côté, c’est très simple. Depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, nous avons maintenant plus de gens en mouvement que jamais. Les migrations massives vont devenir une réalité à l’ère des bouleversements climatiques qui nous attendent. Les perturbations climatiques sont une cause directe de la migration, et aussi une cause indirecte de la migration, parce que les stress climatiques agissent comme un accélérateur dans de nombreux conflits armés. Dans de nombreux cas, elles se recoupent avec différentes formes de violence. Elles agissent comme un accélérateur. Le stress climatique aggrave les problèmes que vous rencontrez, ce qui incite souvent les gens à migrer.

    Nous sommes confrontés à un choix très clair quant à la façon dont nous allons faire face à cette réalité. Allons-nous complètement réimaginer nos frontières ? Allons-nous comprendre qu’il s’agit d’une crise qui a été créée dans le monde riche et qui est ressentie d’abord et avant tout par les populations les plus pauvres de la planète ? Allons-nous ouvrir nos bras et ouvrir nos frontières à bien d’autres personnes ? Ou allons-nous fortifier ces frontières et nous contenter de dire que nous allons prendre soin des nôtres ?

    La montée de l’éco-fascisme nous dit que nous allons le faire. Et quand cela se produit, et que des milliers de personnes commencent à se noyer en Méditerranée, et quand vous avez des gens enfermés dans des conditions abominables dans des camps de détention, que ce soit au Texas, en Libye, à Manus ou à Nauru [îles transformées par le gouvernement australien en camps de détention], il faut des théories pour justifier cette barbarie, des théories qui disent que la vie de certaines personnes vaut plus que celle d’autres et qui réaffirment cette hiérarchie brutale. Ainsi, de la même manière que le racisme pseudoscientifique est apparu comme un moyen de justifier la barbarie de l’esclavage et le vol de terres coloniales, nous sommes maintenant au milieu d’une résurgence de ces mêmes visions brutales du monde, pour justifier le sacrifice actuel et futur de la vie humaine face aux bouleversements climatiques.

    #green_new_deal #capitalisme_du_désastre #naomi_klein

  • Plan, Mood, Battlefield - Reflections on the Green New Deal - Viewpoint Magazine

    After a few months of swirling discourse, we can begin to identify an emergent set of positions in the debate around the Green New Deal. The right-wing has resorted to classic red-baiting, decrying the nonbinding resolution as a “socialist monster,” a road to the serfdom of state planning, rationing, and compulsory veganism. The vanishing center is clinging tightly to its cozy attachment to a politics of triangulation: the Green New Deal is a childlike dream; serious adults know that the only option is to hew to the path of bipartisanship and incrementalism. The left, of course, knows that in the context of already-unfolding climate crisis, resurgent xenophobia, and the weakening hold on legitimacy of the neoliberal consensus, the real delusions are “market-driven” solutions and nostalgic paeans to American “norms and institutions.”

    But on the left, too, there are criticisms, and outright rejections, of the Green New Deal (see here, here, here, and here). There is the charge that the Green New Deal, like the old New Deal, amounts to the state, qua executive committee of the bourgeoisie, rescuing capitalism from the planetary crisis it has created. In this rendering, rather than empowering “frontline and vulnerable” communities, as the resolution claims, the policy framework will amount to a corporate welfare windfall of investment opportunities lubricated with tax breaks and subsidies; public-private partnerships; infrastructure outlays that will stimulate real estate development; and, a jobs guarantee that will stimulate consumption—a win-win for the state and capital, but, by leaving the underlying, growth-addicted, model of accumulation untouched, a loss for the planet and the communities most vulnerable to climate crisis and eco-apartheid. There’s another twist. As sometimes the same analyses point out, this win-win-lose-lose scenario is itself based on a false understanding of contemporary capitalism. In a world of secular stagnation—declining profit rates, speculative bubbles, financialization, rentier-like behavior, and accumulation-by-upward-redistribution—the vampire-like quality of capital has never been more apparent. The notion that capital might, with a little inducement, suddenly overcome these tendencies and invest in productive activities is its own nostalgic fantasy.

    #green_new_deal #debate

  • Between the Devil and the Green New Deal | Jasper Bernes

    To meet the demands of the Green New Deal, which proposes to convert the US economy to zero emissions, renewable power by 2030, there will be a lot more of these mines gouged into the crust of the earth. That’s because nearly every renewable energy source depends upon non-renewable and frequently hard-to-access minerals: solar panels use indium, turbines use neodymium, batteries use lithium, and all require kilotons of steel, tin, silver, and copper. The renewable-energy supply chain is a complicated hopscotch around the periodic table and around the world. To make a high-capacity solar panel, one might need copper (atomic number 29) from Chile, indium (49) from Australia, gallium (31) from China, and selenium (34) from Germany. Many of the most efficient, direct-drive wind turbines require a couple pounds of the rare-earth metal neodymium, and there’s 140 pounds of lithium in each Tesla.

    It’s not for nothing that coal miners were, for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the very image of capitalist immiseration—it’s exhausting, dangerous, ugly work. Le Voreux, “the voracious one”—that’s what Émile Zola names the coal mine in Germinal, his novel of class struggle in a French company town. Capped with coal-burning smokestacks, the mine is both maze and minotaur all in one, “crouching like some evil beast at the bottom of its lair . . . puffing and panting in increasingly slow, deep bursts, as if it were struggling to digest its meal of human flesh.” Monsters are products of the earth in classical mythology, children of Gaia, born from the caves and hunted down by a cruel race of civilizing sky gods. But in capitalism, what’s monstrous is earth as animated by those civilizing energies. In exchange for these terrestrial treasures—used to power trains and ships and factories—a whole class of people is thrown into the pits. The warming earth teems with such monsters of our own making—monsters of drought and migration, famine and storm. Renewable energy is no refuge, really. The worst industrial accident in the history of the United States, the Hawk’s Nest Incident of 1930, was a renewable energy disaster. Drilling a three-mile-long inlet for a Union Carbide hydroelectric plant, five thousand workers were sickened when they hit a thick vein of silica, filling the tunnel with blinding white dust. Eight hundred eventually died of silicosis. Energy is never “clean,” as Muriel Rukeyser makes clear in the epic, documentary poem she wrote about Hawk’s Nest, “The Book of the Dead.” “Who runs through the electric wires?” she asks. “Who speaks down every road?” The infrastructure of the modern world is cast from molten grief.

    #green_new_deal #communisateur #debate

  • Climate Advocates Are Nearly Unanimous: Bernie’s Green New Deal Is Best

    Sunrise Movement cofounder and political director Evan Weber said: “The Green New Deal laid out by Bernie Sanders’s campaign is the biggest and boldest and most ambitious we’ve seen yet. It seems to really grasp the scale of the challenge first and foremost, while also recognizing the opportunity we have to transform our economy and stop the climate crisis and so no one gets left behind in the economy.”


  • An open letter to Extinction Rebellion | Red Pepper

    This letter was collaboratively written with dozens of aligned groups. As the weeks of action called by Extinction Rebellion were coming to an end, our groups came together to reflect on the narrative, strategies, tactics and demands of a reinvigorated climate movement in the UK. In this letter we articulate a foundational set of principles and demands that are rooted in justice and which we feel are crucial for the whole movement to consider as we continue constructing a response to the ‘climate emergency’.

    At the same time, in order to construct a different future, or even to imagine it, we have to understand what this “path” is, and how we arrived at the world as we know it now. “The Truth” of the ecological crisis is that we did not get here by a sequence of small missteps, but were thrust here by powerful forces that drove the distribution of resources of the entire planet and the structure of our societies. The economic structures that dominate us were brought about by colonial projects whose sole purpose is the pursuit of domination and profit. For centuries, racism, sexism and classism have been necessary for this system to be upheld, and have shaped the conditions we find ourselves in.

    Another truth is that for many, the bleakness is not something of “the future”. For those of us who are indigenous, working class, black, brown, queer, trans or disabled, the experience of structural violence became part of our birthright. Greta Thunberg calls world leaders to act by reminding them that “Our house is on fire”. For many of us, the house has been on fire for a long time: whenever the tide of ecological violence rises, our communities, especially in the Global South are always first hit. We are the first to face poor air quality, hunger, public health crises, drought, floods and displacement.

    #extinction_rebellion #écologie #stratégie #green_new_deal #programme #transition

    • You may not realize that when you focus on the science you often look past the fire and us – you look past our histories of struggle, dignity, victory and resilience. And you look past the vast intergenerational knowledge of unity with nature that our peoples have. Indigenous communities remind us that we are not separate from nature, and that protecting the environment is also protecting ourselves. In order to survive, communities in the Global South continue to lead the visioning and building of new worlds free of the violence of capitalism. We must both centre those experiences and recognise those knowledges here.

      #sud_global #justice #politique