Although the European governments talk about a “humanitarian crisis” and pretend they take relief measures, they hide the causes of the refugee crisis and the real face of their policies, multiplying the death toll on the Greek islands.

Despite the early media reports presenting Germany and other west European countries as open to refugees (Germany was even talking about thousands of employment posts they would cover…), the reality is totally different. The number of refugees that Europe eventually agreed to resettle is too small compared to the millions of refugees that the countries neighbouring the conflict zones have admitted. This tiny quota is the hypocritical answer of the European governments to the huge pressure placed on them by social and political groups but also industrial circles that see in the refugee crisis an opportunity for even cheaper labour in Europe.

The countries of the EU on the refugee route to Europe are doing their best to keep them out. The extreme-right Hungarian government set up fences on the borders of Hungary with Serbia and Croatia, while the “left-wing” Greek government claims that the fence on Greece’s land borders with Turkey cannot be removed. On the sea borders of the EU, Frontex intensifies its efforts to block the refugee entrance instead of helping with rescue efforts. Together with the Greek Coast Guard, they turn a blind eye to the gangs attacking refugee boats. This is Fortress Europe.

But the EU’s responsibility extends even further. The EU along with the US and Russia are to blame for the disastrous wars driving people off their homelands. Their direct or indirect interventions have fuelled the civil wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Talibans in Afganistan and the Islamic State in Middle East did not rise on their own but thanks to the financial, political and military support by the international imperialist forces. The invasion of the US and their allies in Iraq brought about more wars and horrors for Iraqi people. Kurds are suffering an ongoing oppression and faced with fierce attacks by the Islamic State and Erdogan’s authoritarian regime. The economic, political and military interventions of the US, the EU and Russia have totally disrespected the need of people in these areas to live peacefully and are to blame for the enormous migration wave that the EU is trying to keep out of its fortress.

In the past years, European societies are under an enormous pressure due to the financial crisis, by and large paid by the lower classes. The governments in the “Europe of the people” saved the banks and international companies by providing them huge amounts of state funding. A few years ago, Greece’s public debt was transferred from the banks to the European people. Harsh austerity measures have been imposed on the people of indebted countries, while the welfare state throughout Europe is under attack. It is not only salaries that have been severely cut, but also labour rights. At the same time, flexible working has almost become the norm.

Given that neoliberal governments cannot care less about the quality of life of lower classes, a part of them fears that the arrival of the refugees will lead to its deterioration. Like every other government in the EU, the Dutch government makes sure to live up to this fear: it sets up huge cheap camps next to small neglected villages, without concern for the living conditions of the refugees or the local population. At the same time, it gives no guarantees that the refugees will not be used as cheap workforce.

The part of European population that has been paying the price of the neoliberal policies is now being told that the refugees pose a threat to its standard of living. In this way, its discontent and uncertainty are directed against the refugees, themselves victims of the EU’s foreign policy. Protesting against the arrival of the refugees or the creation of refugee camps and not against the neoliberal policies that cause unemployment and poverty for the people and profits for the capital, is very convenient for the governments and economic elites in the EU. It fits in well with their goals and plans if people fall for the racist and fascist propaganda of Golden Dawn in Greece, Wilders in the Netherlands or Lepen in France.

Humanitarian solidarity and material support to the refugees are necessary but not enough. The real solution to the migration crisis will come from overturning the policies of the European Union and the governments applying them. The borders should open immediately so that no more people are drowned at the sea borders of the EU in Greece and Italy. The criminal fences blocking their way to Europe should be removed. Refugees should get equal rights to housing, education, healthcare and work in Europe.

The foreign policy of the EU should change right away. The military, economic and political interventions in the countries of the Middle East should stop. Democracy, peace and development should be actively supported. The EU should stop backing authoritarian regimes. The right of Kurdish and Palestinian people to their own state should be admitted. Money should be given to the refugees and the poor. We should not allow the refugees to be used as cheap workforce in the service of capital.

Parties and organizations of the Left and trade unions in the whole Europe should take specific initiatives in this direction. They should point to the real culprits of the refugee crisis and play a leading role in organizing the struggle of European citizens to protect their quality of life as well as the right of every human being to live with peace and dignity at some place in the world.

Refugees welcome!

Racists, fascists and neoliberals, you are personae non gratae.

ReINFORM

(Source of the photos::http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/war-in-peace)

When the mild arguments about the “people’s house” and the EU’s ability to transform fall apart, the neoliberal/Memoranda bloc resorts to the only argument left: breaking with the EU equals to returning to the “cave age”.

By Leonidas Vatikiotis

It is worthwhile to attempt an outline of the day after the rupture, in other words, the loan payment default, the unilateral sovereign debt write-off, and the exit from the Eurozone and the European Union. At this point, it is important to note the huge methodological issue arising from trying to solve a future’s equation using parameters of the present, knowing that they will dramatically change after such a rupture. But it is also important to note that the effect of such a change will be mainly positive. Thus, although the conflict with the capital will deprive society of valuable resources (e.g. the net inflow of €6 billion due to Greece’s dealings with the EU in 2015), it will put a halt to the inconceivable destruction of production forces that is currently underway and tends to become endemic (as shown, among others, by the fact that unemployment is stable at 26% and the idle production capacity has reached 34% in the industry).

There are seven sectors that will be affected already the next day after the rupture and are very significant for the people’s incomes but also for the economy: the currency, the funding of the imports and deficits of the state budget, the banks, the alimentation, the energy, and the medicines.

The exchange rate of the new currency in the first period after the rupture will be based on a fixed one-to-one exchange rate to the euro, despite the fact that the exchange rate corresponding to the structure of the Greek economy is lower even than the existing exchange rate of the euro, which is ideally “soft” enough -thanks to the presence of the south European countries in the Eurozone- to allow Germany to export but far too “hard” for the periphery.

The pegging to the euro will be a political decision aiming at preventing the launch of punitive speculative attacks on the new drachma and the repeated chocks to the daily trading practices. Similar practices of pegging to another currency are not followed only by “closed economies”, but also by highly internationalized ones such as Hong Kong. The effect of devaluation on people’s incomes can be counterbalanced by proportional salary increases. The effect on prices can be kept under control, as Greek economists have shown. In other words, there will not be uncontrollable inflation. Besides, such a danger can only be taken as a joke in an economy that suffers from deflation. To tackle deflation within the Eurozone, 60 billion euros are spent each month through the Quantitative Easing Program. Moreover, loans that have been taken in euro will be converted by law into the new currency.

Debt write-off and exit from the euro-EU will improve and not lower the standard of living

In 2014, the trade deficit (excluding shipping and fuel) amounted to €8.13 billion (compared to €16,04bn in 2010). This deficit can be closed by the travel services balance surplus that in 2014 rose to €11.32 billion (€13,39bn of revenues minus €2,07bn of payments). The small presence of vertically integrated tourist activities controlled by multinationals -although their penetration in the tourist sector has been increasing in the last years- allows a government to provide appropriate motivation in order to collect this money. In addition, clearing (non-monetary forms of exchange trade) can make up for the need for foreign currency, while “smart” measures to promote imports like those successfully applied by Argentina (ensuring that every importer will export a specific percentage of the value of their imports) can reduce the need for foreign currency and boost exports.

For the lovers of the Memoranda who claim that they created surpluses, there are no budget deficits to be covered. But for those who believe that giving new life to the dilapidated social structures should be a priority, there is the possibility of printing new money, which should of course be limited. In addition, there is the option of domestic borrowing, which can be used as a means of income redistribution and reinforcing low incomes, showing that not all of forms of debt are reproachable. To some extent, this was also the case when the Greek state was covering its financing needs by publishing treasury bills addressed to savers, even during the ’90s. It is remarkable that in 1998, 80% of state borrowing was internal and 70% of this borrowing was short-term and thus low-risk. The Maastricht Treaty eliminated this possibility in favor of the banks (which, in this way, got rid of competition) and especially the financial giants that took over state lending. The safety net provided by domestic borrowing is made clear in the case of Japan, where although the sovereign debt is extremely high (246,1% of GDP in 2015), its creditworthiness has not been downgraded by the credit rating agencies exactly because borrowing is domestic and can thus be subjected to many silent restructurings. The threat that domestic borrowing poses to the international speculators was also made clear when PSI took place in February 2012, when nothing was done to protect bondholders. The IMF and credit rating agencies wanted to abolish this possibility once and for all. On the contrary, a government that would want to reinstate the market of domestic borrowing should fully compensate the bondholders who suffered losses in 2012 and perhaps also set a ceiling of, let’s say 100.000 euros, in order to hinder very high incomes.

Nationalizing banks will relieve society from the burden of their prolonged death. Despite the 211 billion they have received since 2008 in the form of subsidies and guarantees, banks today are in a much worse state, as reflected in the loans to deposits ratio: from an admirable balance in 2000  (€108,23bn of loans to €109,23bn of deposits or 99%) to an enormous asymmetry in 2009 (€300,32bn of loans to €237,53bn of deposits or 126%), which has become even worse in January 2015 (€214bn of loans to €147bn of deposits or 146%, with the non-performing loans to have climbed up to €78bn) and is further deteriorating due to the bank run caused by the policy of suffocation of the ECB.

As far as food products are concerned, according to a research by the Panhellenic Confederation of Unions of Agricultural Cooperatives (published in 2012) that examines 41 basic rural food products – both plant- and animal-based – for the year 2011, there is sufficiency (production in relation to consumption, with consumption being defined as the amount of production plus imports minus exports) at the hopeful level of 95%. Taking a better look at the figures, however, one can see that the highest sufficiency is observed in not-basic products (edible olives 996%, raisins 275%, sea products 221%, oranges 191% and kiwis 180%) whereas the lowest sufficiency is observed in almost basic products (sugar 14%, beef 29%, lentils 33%, soft grain 33% and pork 36%). It is important to note that the production of sugar is indicative of the damage caused in the rural production by the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU directives, which led to the closure of the factories of the Greek Sugar Industry in favour of German exporters. In this way, Greece moved from being a net exporter to a net importer of sugar. There are similar examples in livestock production as well. The ability of a country to fill this gap if a shift of policy is decided was proved in 2010 when Russia massively bought young milk cows from Western Europe, succeeding in gaining sufficiency within two years.

As far as solid fuels are concerned, the market is characterised by oversupply, with a total installed power of 17.500 MW and a highest demand of 7.000 MW. Same as the food production, if it was not for the EU directives within the framework of the so-called “liberalisation”, much cheaper electricity power could be generated, for example by putting the brakes on the scandalous funding of the private sector of the Renewable Energy Resources, by allowing the expansion of the Public Power Corporation S.A., etc. As far as liquid fuels are concerned, the strategic cooperation of Greece with Russia and the choice of Iran as supplier -instead of the American protectorates- can secure the provision of much cheaper liquid fuels.

Finally, although the country’s 27 pharmaceutical industries are exporting to 80 countries, they only cover 18% of the domestic medicine demand, with the rest of it being covered by multinationals. Domestic medicine producers have repeatedly denounced the scandalous advantage given to the multinationals in the years of austerity and have claimed that they are able to provide for the 70% of the primary health care and the 50% of the hospital care with quality and low cost medicines as long as prescriptions are written differently…

In conclusion, with regard to food products, energy and medicines, but also other sectors, a revolutionary rupture will release unimaginable progressive social forces, which are now being amputated simply because no bourgeois government can implement the aforementioned measures, and will allow society to enter a new ‘golden age’.

Source of the article: https://leonidasvatikiotis.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/rupture-with-the-eu-%CE%B1-return-to-the-cave-age-or-a-new-golden-age-prin-newspaper-3052015/

Door Dimitris Pavlopoulos, Arbeidssocioloog VU

(scroll down for English)

Hoe Dijsselbloem de Griekse economie ondermijnt

Op 5 juli, de dag van het referendum in Griekenland, heeft de voorzitter van de Eurogroep en PvdA prominent, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, een brief gestuurd aan de leden van zijn partij. Naar mijn mening bevat de brief van dhr. Dijsselbloem een overvloed van onnauwkeurige argumenten en is het eigenlijk niets anders dan een herhaling van de inaccurate en neoliberaal georiënteerde artikelen van de Nederlandse pers de laatste maanden.

De toetreding van Griekenland tot de Eurozone wordt min of meer gepresenteerd als een truc van corrupte Grieken tegen de eerlijke regeringen van Noord-Europa. Wat dhr. Dijsselbloem vergeet te vermelden is de mate waarmee de economische elite van Noord-Europa heeft geprofiteerd van de toetreding van Griekenland (en andere landen in het Zuiden) tot de Eurozone. Zoals de volgende grafiek laat zien, was het deficit van een aantal landen van de Eurozone (inclusief Griekenland) het surplus van een aantal andere landen (inclusief Nederland).

Defensiebudget en lage rente
Dijsselbloem heeft ook kritiek op het Griekse defensiebudget, waarop volgens de Europgroep veel meer moest worden bezuinigd. Wat betreft dat defensiebudget lijkt het, dat dhr. Dijsselbloem denkt dat mensen geen verstand hebben: Nederland is de vierde grootste leverancier van militair materieel aan Griekenland, met contracten die zelfs in de crisisjaren zijn uitgevoerd (na 2010). Griekenland werd tijdens de crisis door de Troika gedwongen om de contracten voor aankoop van militair materieel te eerbiedigen, zelfs in gevallen waarin het materieel te duur en gebrekkig was (zie de zaak van de aanschaf van defecte onderzeeërs van het Duitse bedrijf HDW).

Het argument dat Griekenland heeft geprofiteerd van lage rente om goedkope leningen te krijgen gaat ook niet op. Deze leningen werden verstrekt door voornamelijk in de noordelijke Europese landen gevestigde private banken, die massaal hebben geprofiteerd van het verstrekken van deze leningen.

Wie profiteerde?
Het is hierom dat we het argument van dhr. Dijsselbloem omdraaien door te vragen: wie profiteerde er echt van de toelating van Griekenland tot de Eurozone? Griekenland voldeed absoluut niet aan de criteria van het Verdrag van Maastricht om toe te treden tot de Eurozone. In werkelijkheid zijn deze criteria erkend als ad hoc neoliberale criteria die niet geschikt zijn om het naar elkaar toe groeien van verschillende economieën te garanderen.

In ieder geval verzekerde de aanwezigheid van Griekenland en andere zwakke economieën in de periferie van de Eurozone zowel de export- als de bankensector van Noord-Europa van een grote markt zonder grenzen. Bovendien garandeerde de crisis in de zuidelijke landen dat de noordelijke landen zoals Duitsland en Nederland door investeerders beschouwd werden als een ‘veilige haven’. Volgens conservatieve schattingen zijn de winsten van Duitsland op de nul-rentetarieven waarvan het land profiteerde voor zijn obligaties en de rente die Griekenland betaalde voor de bilaterale leningen gestegen tot €80 miljard.

Behoed voor erger?
De meest ongelofelijke uitspraak van dhr. Dijsselbloem is dat de reddingspakketten en de bezuinigingsmaatregelen die de afgelopen vijf jaar op Griekenland werden toegepast, het volk heeft behoed voor een grotere ramp. Hier kan veel over worden gezegd. Echter, het beste antwoord komt van iemand van zijn eigen club, Karl Otto Pohl, een voormalig directeur van de Bundesbank: “The bail-out was about protecting German and – above all – French banks from debt write-offs. (…) In this way, one understands that in reality it was about saving the banks and the rich Greeks…” [Spiegel, 18/5/2010].

De realiteit bevestigt de voorgaande uitspraak. De onhoudbaarheid van de Griekse schuld was sinds 2009 bij de EU bekend. De sociaaldemocratische premier G. Papandreou manipuleerde het begrotingstekort tot 15.2% (een juridisch onderzoek naar de kwestie is gaande), zodat Griekenland het grootste tekort in de EU heeft en een verzoek om hulp gerechtvaardigd is. Na twee opeenvolgende reddingspakketen in 2010 en 2012 is de Griekse schuld nauwelijks afgenomen.

Wat wel veranderde, is de samenstelling van de schuldeisers. Concreet: In 2010 bezaten de officiële schuldeisers (regeringen, ECB enz.) minder dan een derde van de Griekse staatsschuld. Tegenwoordig bezitten ze meer dan drie kwart. Conclusie: de Europese banken werden gered van een faillissement! De bewering van dhr. Dijsselbloem “…de jaarlijkse kosten van Griekse rentebetalingen zijn erg laag” maakt duidelijk dat hem kennis ontbreekt over de basisgegevens van de Griekse economie. Alleen al over 2015 bedroegen de kosten voor de rentebetalingen van de staatsschuld 12.3% van het bbp en meer dan 50% van het netto nationaal beschikbaar inkomen.

Tegelijkertijd explodeerden de inkomensongelijkheid en de ongelijkheid van de verdeling van de rijkdom in Griekenland. Van 2009 tot 2012 is de inkomensverhouding tussen het rijkste vijfde deel van de bevolking en het armste vijfde deel gestegen van 5.8 tot 6.6. Van 2011 tot 2013 steeg het aantal individuen met een rijkdom groter dan €30 miljoen van 445 tot 505 en steeg hun totale rijkdom van €50 miljard tot €60 miljard ofwel 32% van het bbp. Dit alles gebeurde onder de neus van de Troika, die elke kleine wet goedkeurde die het parlement aannam.

De Trojka frustreert de belastingplannen
Wij nodigen dhr. Dijsselbloem uit om bewijs aan te dragen dat de Troika van enige Griekse regering in de afgelopen vijf jaar serieus heeft geëist om de allerrijksten belasting op te leggen. Heeft de Troika gedreigd met stoppen van het aanbieden van de tranches van de lening vanwege het falen van de voorgaande regeringen om de ‘Lagarde lijst’ te onderzoeken (de lijst met mogelijke belastingontduikers met spaarrekeningen bij HSBC in Zwitserland)? Heeft de Troika ooit geëist dat de private tv kanalen worden belast, die sinds 1991 opereren zonder een enkele euro belasting te betalen? In de laatste onderhandelingen voor het referendum eiste de Troika (en specifiek het IMF) in plaats daarvan van de Griekse regering, om het plan af te schaffen om een eenmalige nieuwe belasting op te leggen aan bedrijven met een netto winst groter dan €1 miljoen, als een maatregel die groei belemmert! In plaats daarvan eisten ze van de regering om een speciale aanvulling van pensioenen (EKAS) te schrappen, met het gevolg dat mensen met pensioenen van €400 en €500 nieuwe verliezen moeten dragen.

Dhr. Dijsselbloem heeft ook verzaakt om een aantal andere eisen tot ‘hervormingen’ van de Troika te rapporteren. De Troika eiste van de SYRIZA-regering afschaffing van de plannen voor de versterking van de kracht van collectieve arbeidsovereenkomsten en het verhogen van het minimum loon tot een brutobegrag van €751 per maand. Dhr. Dijsselbloem en zijn collega’s eisten van de Griekse regering afschaffing van het plan van €200 miljoen (dat is wat dhr. Dijsselbloem ‘een hoop geld’ noemt…), om voedselbonnen en gratis electriciteit te verstrekken aan families die in de diepste armoede leven. Ze eisten ook de afschaffing van de bescherming van arme huiseigenaren tegen uitzettingen vanwege schulden. Dit zijn de structurele hervormingen die dhr. Dijsselbloem eist van de Grieken!

De EU, ECB en het IMF vertegenwoordigen niet de Europeanen
Dijsselbloem en co in de EU, de ECB en het IMF vertegenwoordigen niet de Europeanen. Zij vertegenwoordigen het belang van de financiële markten en de economische elites. Voor hen is het ultieme doel een linkse regering (zelfs met een zeer gematigd links programma) enige kans op succes te ontnemen. Zij willen laten zien dat neoliberalisme en bezuinigingen de enige weg zijn voor Europa; niet alleen voor Griekenland, maar ook voor Nederland, zoals de praktijk van de huidige regering laat zien. Dat is waarom dhr. Dijsselbloem bot intervenieerde in het proces van het referendum en dat is waarom hij in zijn brief duidelijk aangeeft dat hij zou willen dat andere politici ingrijpen in Griekenland.

Het Griekse volk nam een duidelijke beslissing in het referendum; het bezuinigingsbeleid zou moeten ophouden. Ze gaven ook een duidelijk antwoord op de chantage van Dijsselbloem en co: het volk zelf zal beslissen over de toekomst van Griekenland en niet de bureaucraten en lobbyisten van Brussel of de bankiers van Frankfurt. Nu zijn de progressieven overal in Europa aan de beurt om hierover een positie in te nemen.

Het is de hoogste tijd dat dhr. Dijsselbloem aftreedt als voorzitter van de Eurogroep. Hij heeft laten zien dat hij de democratie niet respecteert en dat hij het recht van het volk om over de eigen toekomst te beslissen negeert. Het is van belang dat zelfs de PvdA leden dit verzoek onderschrijven en een standpunt in nemen voor het recht van het Griekse volk om los te breken van de dodelijke spiraal van bezuinigingen. Het standpunt van dhr. Dijsselbloem en de manier waarop hij de ‘Griekse kwestie’ heeft behandeld maakt duidelijk dat hij niets te maken heeft met sociaaldemocratische principes.

Lees hier de brief van Jeroen Dijsselbloem aan de PvdA-leden

Source of the article:http://www.joop.nl/opinies/detail/artikel/33002_dijsselbloem_treed_af_als_voorzitter_van_de_eurogroep/

The article was originally written in English and it has been translated into Dutch by Maaike van Kregten.

Dijsselbloem, resign from Eurogroup presidency!

By Dimitris Pavlopoulos

Dimitris Pavlopoulos works as an assistant professor in Sociology at the VU University in Amsterdam.

On July 5^th, the day of the referendum in Greece,  the president of the Eurogroup and prominent member of the Dutch Labour Party, Jeroen Dijsselbloem addressed a letter to the member of his party. In our opinion, the letter of Dijsselbloem contains a plethora of inaccurate arguments and is actually nothing else than a repetition of the inaccurate and neoliberal-oriented articles of the Dutch press the last months.

The accession of Greece to the Eurozone is presented more or less as trick of corrupted Greek people against the honest governments of northern Europe. What Dijsselbloem fails to mention is the extent to which the economic elite of northern Europe has profited from the accession of Greece (and other countries of the South) to the Eurozone. As shown also in the following graph, the deficit of some countries of the Eurozone (including Greece) was the surplus of some others (including the Netherlands). As for the defence budget, it seems that Mr Dijsselbloem takes people for idiots: the Netherlands is the 4^th largest supplier of military equipment to Greece with contracts being executed even within the years of crisis (after 2010). Greece was forced by the Troika to honour the contracts for buying military equipment within the crisis even in cases where the equipment was overpriced and faulty (see the case of the purchase of faulty submarines from the German company HDW).

The argument that Greece profited from the low interest rates to increase credit is also void. These loans were provided by private banks established mainly in northern European countries that profited massively by providing these loans.

Therefore, we reverse the argument of Mr Dijsselbloem by asking: who profited really from the accession of Greece to the Eurozone? Greece definitely did not fulfil the criteria of the Maastricht treaty for accessing the Eurozone. Actually, these criteria themselves have been recognized as ad hoc neoliberal criteria that are not able to ensure the conversion of different economies. In any case, the presence of Greece and other weak economies of the periphery in the Eurozone ensured that a large market without borders is available for the export business and the banking sector of northern Europe. Moreover, the crisis in the countries of the south ensured that countries of the north such as Germany and the Netherlands were considered as ‘save havens’ for investors. Conservative estimates raise the gains of Germany from the zero interest rates it enjoyed for its bonds and the interest paid by Greece for the bilateral loans to €80 billion.

The most incredible claim of Mr Dijsselbloem is that the rescue packages and the austerity policies that were imposed to Greece the last 5 years saved the people from a greater disaster. A lot can be argued against this. However the best answer comes from a person of his own club, Karl Otto Pohl, a former director of the Bundesbank: ‘The bail-out was about protecting German and -above all- French banks from debt write-offs.‘… ‘In this way, one understands that in reality it was about saving the banks and the rich Greeks…‘ (Spiegel, 18/5/2010).

Reality confirms the aforementioned statement. The unsustainability of the Greek debt was known to the EU since 2009. The social-democrat Greek PM G. Papandreou manipulated the budget deficit to 15.2% (a judicial investigation of the issue is underway) so that Greece has the largest deficit in the EU and a rescue request is justified. After 2 successive bail-outs in 2010 and 2012, the absolute level of the Greek debt remained hardly decreased. However, the holders of the debt changed dramatically. In 2010, the official creditors (governments, ECB etc.) held less than 1/3 of the Greek sovereign debt. Today, they hold more than ¾. Conclusion: the banks were rescued from bankruptcy! The argument of Mr Dijsselbloem that “…the yearly costs of servicing the Greek debts are very low” shows that he lacks knowledge of the basic figures of the Greek economy. Only for 2015, the costs of servicing the sovereign debt amount to 12.3% of GDP and more than 50% of the Net National Disposable Income.

At the same time, income and wealth inequality exploded in Greece. From 2009 to 2012, the income ratio between the richest fifth of the population and the poorest rose from 5.8 to 6.6. From 2011 until 2013, the number of individuals with wealth higher than €30 million rose from 445 to 505 and their total wealth rose from €50 billion to €60 billion or else 32% of GDP. All this was happening under the nose of the Troika that was approving every little law passed by the Parliament.

We invite Mr Dijsselbloem to provide evidence proving that the Troika demanded seriously from any Greek government of the last 5 years to tax the very rich. Did the Troika threaten to stop providing the loan tranches because of the failure of the previous governments to investigate the “Lagarde list” (cc. list of possible tax evaders with deposits in HSBC in Switzerland)? Did the Troika ever demand the taxation of private TV channels that have been operating since 1991 without having paid a single euro in taxes? Instead, in the last negotiations before the referendum, the Troika (and specifically the IMF) demanded from the Greek government to abolish its plan for imposing a one-off new tax to companies with net profit larger than €1 million, claiming that it is a measure of hampering growth! On the contrary, they demanded from the government to cut a special assistance benefit for pensioners (EKAS) that would cause pensioners with an income of a €400 and €500 per month to suffer new losses.

Mr Dijsselbloem fails also to report some other demands of the Troika for ‘reforms’. The Troika demanded from the SYRIZA-government to abolish its plans for giving power to collective bargaining and increasing the minimum wage to a gross amount of €751 per month. Mr Dijsselbloem and his colleagues demanded from the Greek government to abolish its €200 million plan (that’s what Mr Dijsselbloem calls ‘a lot of money’…) for providing food stamps and free electricity to families living in absolute poverty. They also demanded the abolition of the protection of poor home-owners from evictions due to debts. These are the structural reforms that Mr Dijsselbloem demands from the Greek people!

Dijsselbloem and co in the EU, the ECB and the IMF do not represent the people of Europe. They represent vested interest of the financial markets and the top economic elites. For them, the ultimate aim is depriving a left government (even with a very moderate left program) of any chance of success. They want to show that neoliberalism and austerity is the only way for Europe; not only for Greece but also for the Netherlands, as the practice of the current Dutch government shows. That’s why Mr Dijsselbloem intervened so bluntly in the process of the referendum and that’s why in his letter, he clearly states that he would like other politicians to step in in Greece.

The Greek people took a clear decision in the referendum: austerity policies should end. They also gave a clear answer to the blackmail of Dijsselbloem and co: the people themselves will decide for the future of Greece and not the bureaucrats and lobbyists of Brussels or the bankers of Frankfurt. It is now progressive people’s turn throughout Europe to take a position on it.

We call Mr Dijsselbloem to resign immediately from the presidency of the Eurogroup. He has shown that he disregards democracy and that he ignores their right to decide on their own future. We call the members of the Dutch Labour Party to endorse this request and take a position on the right of the Greek people to break free from the deadly spiral of austerity. The position of mr Dijsselbloem and the way he handled the ‘Greek issue’ shows that he has nothing to do with any social-democratic principles.

Read here the letter of Dijsselbloem to the members of the Dutch Labor Party, on July 5th

With ever growing securitization and militarization of its immigrations policies, the European Union is closing the gates to the unwanted outsiders and covers the Mediterranean in blood.

The media talk about a tsunami of refugees, and hordes of ‘illegal’ immigrants. They use a language that refers to war or environmental disaster and therefore, justifies all kinds of control and repression measures.

The law draws an arbitrary line between ‘forced’ and ‘voluntary’ migration. In reality, very little difference exists between those fleeing persecution and those fleeing hunger. At the end of the day, every human life has the same value.

Days after the deadliest incident in the Mediterranean, where more than 800 migrants lost their lives, the European Council called an emergency summit to respond to the crisis in the Mediterranean. There, it became clear that the incentive of the EU leaders is not to save lives but to forbid people from dying at their doorstep.

The EU and its member states try to seal their borders making regular ways of entry practically inaccessible, criminalizing irregular migration, and employing the latest military technology and brutal force to block access to their territory.

The result of these policies is violence and death. The EU denies responsibility for the thousands of lives lost at sea, the hundreds of thousands rotting in immigration detention, and all those forced to return to fear and want.

Instead, the recent mass drowning is used once again as an excuse for even further militarization, even stricter controls and closer cooperation with countries with problematic human rights records. The EU declared war on smugglers and stated that it would burn migrant vessels before departure, in order to protect migrants from the dangers of the sea.

Targeting smugglers is fighting only the symptoms of a disease that is as deadly as the system itself.

The European Union and its member states cannot deny their role in supporting and participating in the wars and the financial imperialism that drives people away from their homes. When this is coupled with human mobility, a phenomenon as natural as humanity itself, then desperate young men and women will put their lives at risk to cross a human-made border.

Drownings are not a natural phenomenon. It is a result of the EU migration policies.

ReInform

Source of featured image: dw.de

SYRIZA’s mild Keynesian programme has been gutted. Is a more democratic economic alternative possible within the framework of the EU?

SYRIZA’s victory in the Greek elections of 25 January raised a wave of hope across Europe.  The dominance of the austerity-oriented conservative and social democratic parties was at last challenged by the victory of a leftist anti-austerity party, signalling a possible change of course in Europe.

But one month into a SYRIZA-led administration, the prospects look much gloomier.  SYRIZA is committed to Greece remaining within the Eurozone, and that requires the agreement of several powerful institutions (EU, ECB, IMF) and the tolerance of the core economic elites of Europe.  This was not forthcoming.  The new Greek Government was quickly challenged by a liquidity blackmail originated by the ECB and supported by the German government and the EU leadership.  It soon became apparent that even mildly reversing austerity and prioritising the tackling of the humanitarian crisis – the main pillars of SYRIZA’s Keynesian programme – have no place in the EU as currently constituted.

In late 2014, the previous coalition government of conservatives and social democrats refused the EU Commission’s offer to extend the bailout programme until the summer asking an extension until the end of February instead.  In this way, the newly elected government faced an immediate liquidity danger and was forced into a negotiation with the EU under unfavourable terms.  After repeated Eurogroup meetings, the new government practically gave up on the bulk of its programme so as to buy some time (four months).  According to the common Eurogroup statement of 20 February, and the letter of the Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis of 23 February, with the first commitments the Greek government agreed to leave practically untouched all privatisations and the majority of the budget cuts of the last four years and practically committed not to intervene to the banking sector.  All the sovereign debt is recognised as payable.  The Troika’s labour market deregulation laws are to be carefully evaluated, and partly changed, but definitely not reversed.  The raising of the national minimum wage will be subject to the approval of the EU, while further wage cuts in the public sector are not excluded (without adjustment of the wage floors).  The government is committed to abandoning all possibilities of early retirement, meaning the neoliberal pension reforms remain, while the already-realised pension reductions and the implementation of the pay-as-you-go system of the previous governments must remain untouched.

The abolition of Troika’s ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (MoU) was the most central element of SYRIZA’s political campaign since 2011, and is the basis of the mandate it received in the recent elections.  Yet the new Eurogroup agreement refers to the MoU as the ‘existing arrangement’.  Moreover, EU Commissioners and Eurogroup’s Chairman Jeroen Djisselbloem publicly claimed the deal is about the extension of the MoU.

The SYRIZA-led government managed to avoid, for the moment, some of the remaining demands of the Troika under the MoU – like further reductions in pensions and changes to the laws on strikes and the funding of unions – but failed to abolish the bulk of it.  It got an extension of the same loan agreement – without any renegotiation of its characteristics – and the MoU will be evaluated with Varoufakis’ aforementioned letter as the ‘starting point’.

Nothing prevents the EU from coming back and insisting on the implementation of all measures included in the MoU, even if they are not in Varoufakis’s list, whilst the IMF has objected that the Greek letter ‘is not conveying clear assurances that the Government intends to undertake the reforms envisaged in the Memorandum’.  It notes in particular the commitment in the MoU to pension and VAT reforms, to opening up of closed sectors and privatisations, as well as administrative and labour reforms, and it emphasises that the ‘completion of the review’ cannot ‘be successful […] within the policy perimeters outlined in the Government’s list’.

The text of the Eurozone deal itself includes major impediments to the implementation of SYRIZA’s manifesto of 2014, known as the Thessaloniki programme.[1]  But the worst is that it gives the EU and the IMF the right to veto any law or reform with any economic impact introduced in the next four months.[2] The following table compares SYRIZA’s most important electoral pledges (included in the Thessaloniki programme) with the Eurogroup’s deal, or the list of measures included in ‘Varoufakis’ letter’ accepted by the EU as ‘a valid starting point for a successful conclusion of the [MoU’s] review’:

The first pillar of the Thessaloniki programme was a €2 billion bill to deal with the humanitarian crisis.  This included free electricity and food support to 300,000 households living in poverty, free healthcare to all, and subsidised rent for tens of thousands of citizens to combat homelessness.  It also included the restoration of the so called thirteenth pension (end of year bonus) for pensions below €700.  Now any decision impacting on the budget can be vetoed by the EU.  On the top of that, the government has committed to paying €22 billion on servicing the debt this year and still coming out with more than a 1.5% budget surplus.  Each 1% of fiscal surplus means €1.8 billion less for humanitarian relief.  In addition, non-salary and non-pension government expenditures are to be ‘rationalised’.  In a second letter sent by Varoufakis to the Eurogroup on 6 March 2015, the cost of the programme is reduced to 200 million.  Free electricity will finally be provided to only half of the households programmed (150,000) while the provision of free healthcare and the ‘thirteenth pension’ have disappeared.  All the cost is supposed to be covered by cuts in the expenditure of government ministries and a new system of public tenders which is expected to save €140 million.[3]

The second pillar of the Thessaloniki programme was about ‘restarting the economy’ by halting the ‘tax repression’ of the economically active part of the population.  The backbone of this pillar was the plan to help citizens with tax debts by breaking them into small (100) instalments, writing-off about half of these debts for those that pay up to April, restoring the limit of tax free income to €12,000 a year and cancelling the housing tax for small housing properties.  However, the EU is expected to add many conditions to these measures, with which the government had estimated it would receive €3 billion in revenues in the first year.  In the second letter sent by Varoufakis, writing off parts of tax arrears is replaced by ‘strict payment discipline’ as in the similar programme that was put forward by the previous government and finally rejected by the Troika.  The likely beneficiaries are also reduced since whoever misses a payment is now excluded automatically from the programme.

The other flagship measure of the second pillar was the restructuring of ‘bad loans’ made by banks to households and businesses.  SYRIZA proposed creating a public body that would buy and restructure this debt (which amounts to €77 billion) using €3 billion from the Hellenic Financial Stability Fund (HFSF).[4]  But this proposal has already been killed off by the Eurogroup deal, which made clear these funds ‘can only be used for bank recapitalisation and resolution costs’.  In any case,  these funds have in fact already been returned to European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF)/ European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and Greek banks can apply directly to the ECB/SSM by the end of June to use them.  But even if the Greek government could use these funds, they would still be insufficient to deal with the volume of the bad loans.

The third pillar of SYRIZA’s programme is referred to as ‘re-conquering labour’, and is perhaps the one most fatally undermined by the Eurogroup deal and Varoufakis’s letter.  Since the government agreed to refrain ‘from any rollback of measures [...] that would negatively impact [...] economic recovery [...], as assessed by the institutions’, any re-establishment of the collective bargaining system and arbitration mechanism that was demolished by the Troika would surely be vetoed.  In the place of the old system, the Varoufakis letter talks about ‘a new “smart” approach to collective wage bargaining that balances the needs for flexibility with fairness’.

The creation of 300,000 new jobs and the provision of 300,000 new unemployment allowances are now out of question, especially given that the €3 billion expected from tax reforms will be lost to servicing the debt and achieving a budget surplus.  In line with the 2011 Euro plus pact, Varoufakis’s letter pledges that ‘changes in wages’ will be ‘in line with productivity developments and competitiveness’.  With no investments in sight to improve productivity, and no other factor to drive Greek capital’s competitiveness other than low wages, this effectively rules out any wage increases.

Prospects are bleak for the public sector workers as well.  Varoufakis’s promise to freeze ‘the public sector’s wage bill’ and deliver ‘wage distribution through productivity gains’ means any improvement in the €600 salary that newly appointed doctors and teachers now receive, forcing them below the poverty line, is unlikely.  The Greek public sector has lost more than 200,000 employees since 2010, resulting in the radical degradation of basic services to the people.  One of SYRIZA’s electoral pledges was to hire back around 4,000 people who were illegally fired by the previous government.  Now it says these people will be included in the 15,000 public sector jobs the previous government announced it would create.  The Greek public sector needs much more of a boost on recruitments to become functional again.

An indication on the direction of the compromises that were made by SYRIZA is given by the position of the Greek employers.  While SYRIZA enjoys massive support among the working class around the country, it was the Federation of Greek Employers (SEV) who saluted the measures in Varoufakis’s letter and called citizens to ‘support the government’s agenda with fortitude and faith’!

What comes after the four month period?

This four month programme extension will unfortunately not be the end of the EU’s tutelage over Greece.  According to the government, this is only a bridge programme to be replaced in June by a permanent ‘contractual agreement’.  Greece’s unsustainable sovereign debt will need fresh cash to be serviced, and European tax payers will once again be forced to contribute to this black hole.  There is little prospect that any new economic programme attached to a new loan will be a programme for growth and social justice as SYRIZA would like.  On the contrary, it will likely have the same characteristics as the existing austerity programme.  Within this framework, it is difficult to imagine any improvement in Greece’s most extreme socio-economic problems; namely the 1.3 million unemployed, the 60% of working people unable to make ends meet, the three million people with no access healthcare and the lack of public investment which has led to a lost generation and a generalised feeling of depression.  Since it is actually questionable whether the Thessaloniki programme would be enough to put an end this social and economic disaster, one can only imagine what the consequences will be now that even this programme has been gutted.

Lessons to be learned

If one thing has become clear, it is that the long-expected change of course in Greece and the EU more broadly, will not come just because SYRIZA has come to power.  The question that emerges is whether things could have gone, and can still go, differently.  Is it possible for a left government in an austerity hit country to apply even a mild Keynesian policy while remaining within the eurozone and the EU? The answer is simply NO!

The EU institutions under the leadership of Germany have used all the means at their disposal to force the Greek government to backtrack from its programme.  Without new loans, Greece can’t service its existing debt, and the ECB (acting on behalf of the EU) has already threatened to cut off liquidity to enforce harsh neoliberal reforms, as it did in negotiations with Italy, Ireland and Cyprus.

In addition to the financial ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (liquidity and debt), the EU has numerous tools to discipline governments deviating from austerity policies, even when it hasn’t bailed them out.  The rules of economic governance in the EU give the European Commission the ability to review the yearly budgets of the countries, and to demand changes and apply fines to countries that deviate from its recommendations.  They can also freeze the structural funds[5] for a country that does not follow their recommendations on reducing deficits and sanctions can now also be imposed on countries for not dealing with ‘a macroeconomic imbalance’ the way the Commission recommends.  One of the rules imposed is the capping of the growth of nominal labour unit cost[6] at 9% for Eurozone countries and 12% for non-Eurozone countries for three consecutive years.  This effectively bars the redistribution of GDP from capital to labour through wages.  Such rules of economic governance are based on hardline neoliberal principles, and their interpretation is at the discretion of the organs of the EU (i.e. the European Commission) which are not subject to any democratic control.  Legislation on ‘competition’ and liberalisation also prohibits treating energy, mass transport, telecommunications or finance as public services.  In this context, there is just no room for manoeuvre for even a mild Keynesian economic programme.

Opposition to the dominant EU project has been on the rise not just in Greece, but also in Spain, and to a lesser extent in other countries too, like Slovenia and Portugal.  Left-wing forces have invested politically in the idea of pushing for progressive reform of the EU.  However, the demands of the social movements that these forces seek to represent – for more democracy, more commons, less unemployment and precariousness, work with rights and a more decent life – are clearly in contradiction with the political, legal and institutional structure of the EU.  What strategy then should be followed vis-à-vis the EU by political and social forces that aim to break with neoliberalism?

Changing the legislation on economic governance and infrastructure liberalisation would require a ‘qualified majority’ in the Council, while overcoming the European Fiscal Compact and other treaties would require unanimity.  We can be sure the socio-political conditions will never be favourable for the radical left to form governments in 16 out of the 28 countries, representing 65% of the EU’s population.  Applying disobedience to current EU treaties and legislation, therefore, is the only way for left governments to follow different policies.  Moreover, several institutions with substantial financial and political power (the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Stability Mechanism) lie beyond any immediate democratic control, and will always be able to take action against any undesirable political change at the EU level.

The only way for (radical) left governments to overcome these constraints is to regain monetary power by introducing national currencies under democratic control.  This would also require abolishing the ‘independence’ of their central bank and re-appropriating the capacity to create their own liquidity.  Such a programme should also include the nationalisation of private banks and the introduction of capital controls to avoid capital flight and find resources for job-creation and public investment.  Finally, it would require an end to the servicing of sovereign debt and an invitation to creditors to negotiate on this basis.[7]

The necessary requirement for a left political programme to succeed is that the political power of the forces it represents must extend further than the government.  It must be deeply rooted in mass movements and have the active support of the people.  Left movements must go much further than trying to ease the suffering caused by neoliberal policies, and aim at building an economy orientated towards serving the majority of people, while respecting the planet and the needs of future generations.  For a programme to be successful, an alternative vision must take roots in the hearts and minds of people, and this can only happen if it is concretely put in place with grass-roots initiatives and cooperative local economies leading the effort.

Greece now has four months to decide whether it wants to continue under the austerity straightjacket imposed by Schauble, Dijsselbloem, Draghi, Juncker and Lagarde, or to show the rest of Europe that a different path is possible.  The Left all over Europe should take note of the severe constraints that a an anti-austerity government faces within the Euro and the Treaties.  Juncker has remarked that ‘there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties’ – if he is right, it follows that a genuinely democratic economic alternative will only be possible outside of the framework of EU.

Dimitris Pavlopoulos works as an assistant professor at the department of Sociology of the Free University of Amsterdam. His research concerns the socioeconomic consequences of flexible employment.

Yiorgos Vassalos is a political scientist specialising in interest representation in the EU. He worked for six years for Corporate Europe Observatory and is now writing his PhD on financial lobbying. He is also active in anti-austerity movements.

However, even these minimal demands made by the Greek side seems to be not easily accepted by the rest of the EU governments. They insist that the current government honor the promises of the previous government and comply with the memoranda. EU leaders, even though some of them come
from socialdemocratic parties, try to apply the toughest neoliberal measures people have ever seen not only to Greece but to the whole of Europe. At the same time, they try to convince us that those measures are successful.

Yet the only thing those measures brought to Greece was the disaster of its economy and the penury of the people’s majority: unemployment rose to 25% and 3 million people have no access to medical insurance. The only achievement of those measures -and essentially what they only soughtwas
rescuing European banks from bankruptcy as well as rescuing the profiteers who rise to wealth through the Greek debt.

The experiment that the EU, the IMF and the ECB applied to Greece in cooperation with the corrupted Greek governments will go down in history as the most cruel and inhumane one within the European Union. Analogous measures (pay cuts, abolishment of the social state and abolishment of
work rights) are applied to all European countries as they are in the Netherlands too by Rutte’s cabinet. In every case, the outcome is the increase of unemployment and poverty, while multiplying the profits of big companies and the incomes of the richest 1% of the population.

EU’s attitude towards the Greek people proves its real face. The European Union operates as a brutal executioner of the Greek people and overtly defends the interests of the Greek and the European elite which benefits from the crisis on the Greek people’s shoulders.

The Greek people have already lost a lot and will not draw back. The European Union must accept the Greek people’s decision to reverse the policies towards Greece. The Greek government has no right to withdraw from the Greek people’s decision. The people’s right to live in decency, to democracy and to access to health, education and social care is not negotiable. Greece’s public debt was not created by the people and must not be paid by the people. The more the Greek people are forced to pay that debt the more every policy change will essentially remain impossible. That is why we demand its erasure!

We ask for the support of the Dutch people as well as that of the rest peoples of Europe. Every victory of the Greek people’s demands against the Eurogroup will also be a victory of European people against the policy of cuts and the abolishment of the social state and work rights.

We do not compromise, we do not retreat.

The crisis must be paid by those who created it.

ReINFORM

“Home care workers in Rotterdam who will lose their jobs in 2014 will be partly replaced by benefit recipients. The municipality will oblige those on benefits to do volunteer work”, De Volkskrant newspaper wrote towards the end of 2013. “This is substitution pure and simple”, according to Wim van der Hoorn, a union leader of the FNV labour union. “The municipality tries to patch up the holes in its budget by using the free labour of benefit claimants to get work done that previously was paid work. In this way employment is lost”. But the PvdA (Social Democratic party) elderman Marco Florijn tries to keep up appearances and “wishes to underline that the absolute precondition is that no regular jobs are lost”. His political associate Jan Hamming, mayor of Heusden and chairman of the advisory committee “Work and Income” of the association of Dutch municipalities VNG, is a lot more honest on this issue. He admits that the use of benefit claimants can threaten existing jobs. “There is a financial side to this story. We are confronted with substantial budget cuts. That also impacts on the work in municipalities: it does not get done. So it is only logical that we are also considering putting people who are on benefits to work.” Rotterdam is not a unique case for that matter: thousands, possibly tens of thousands and who knows in future hundreds of thousands of benefit claimants are being forced to do unpaid labour.

Sticky fingers

The question is who profits from forced labour and job substitution, and what the amounts are that we are talking about. It is difficult for us to get this information. The implementation is far from transparent. Many municipalities have already introduced forced labour but they all have their own approach, often through structures that differ only slightly. In some instances the benefit claimants have to do forced labour in municipal reintegration centres and sheltered workplaces, in other places they have to work in home care or with ‘volunteer’ organisations, and other municipalities put them to work in commercial reintegration agencies, temp agencies and commercial businesses.

Obviously any commercial business will only want to be involved in such projects if these are financially attractive. In principle forced labourers are cheaper than regular employees because they do not receive wages and have no entitlements regarding better (and thus more expensive) working conditions. But it is usually unclear how much money is involved, and where exactly it disappears into the deep pockets along the way in the outplacement chain. In most cases it will be financially attractive for the municipalities to force benefit claimants into compulsory unpaid labour. After all, their benefits are being paid by the national government, although in practice quite a few municipalities have already been obliged to pay a share of these costs. With or without municipal deficit: all extra income from forced labour is probably welcome. The downside is that an entire system of repression has to be set up to continuously monitor the forced labourers, and this is costly: the minimum that is necessary would be the monitoring infrastructure plus the wages for the guards and ‘coordinators’. But this in a way is employment and can probably be paid out of the so-called ‘employment budget’ which is part of the social benefits budget that the municipalities receive from the government. In addition there have to be employees who bring in customers and orders, and this should not be too difficult with the obviously low labour cost that can be guaranteed through forced labour. Companies and municipalities try to sell forced labour with all sorts of explanations about ‘social return’, ‘gaining experience’, and ‘giving people guidance and support’, as they do for low paid and unpaid internships and other types of worktraining programmes. Usually it is just empty words but not always: sometimes they really do invest some time into explaining the work to people and training them. And in some cases new workers do indeed produce less in the beginning than their experienced colleagues. In short there would have to be an in depth national research with full cooperation from civil servants, businesses, unions and economists to get to the bottom of who really benefits from forced labour and to what extent.

Substitution

The question is: how useful would such research be for the bottom-up activists, for the workers themselves? And what do we mean by ‘substitution’, how would we describe it? If we look at it from the bottom up it is really very simple: any form of labour that is paid less than the minimum wage or the collective labour agreement wage for adults, in whatever way and with whatever excuse possible, in fact means that regular paid jobs are being replaced. This applies to forced labour in the same way it applies to unpaid internships, worktraining programmes, youth minimum wage jobs, and so on. After all the existing work is turned into a lower paid or even unpaid job.

For alderman Florijn ‘substitution’ probably only applies when a regular paid job is replaced one-on-one by ‘voluntary work’. From the position of the forced labourer however it does not matter at all whether or not the work was a decently paid job earlier on. The issue is that work that is done by a forced labourer cannot be done by a regular paid worker any more. To put it bluntly: every forced labourer is made to substitute the paid job that he or she could have had without forced labour. And this also goes for work that has never, or not for years, been paid work. The fact is that this work obviously needs to be done, otherwise no one would be forced to do it, or be recruited for it, and no internships would be established to do it. The authorities and bosses would simply have to pay to get this work done if forced labour and all sorts of vague internship constructions had not been created. In that case the labourers would have had their wages and rights. Basically there is only one exception to this rule and this is the work that was simply made up to keep benefit claimants busy, to discipline them and bully them out of the benefits scheme. You know the type of work: one man digs a hole and the other one fills it up again. Or the type of forced labour where the benefit claimants just have to show up at the workplace but there is nothing to be done except hang around and wait. This is not substitution of course, but out of principle even in those cases people ought to be properly paid for this. Let alone the fact that benefit claimants are being humiliated by this, and that for that reason alone forced labour should be abolished immediately.

But there is more to substitution than this. Forced labour and obligatory ‘volunteer work’ are not only substituting regular paid jobs, but also important unpaid work such as for example first-line care by family or others, political activism, and also a lot of real volunteer work that the government does not approve of. This means that the existing volunteer economy is losing its autonomy and gets to be more and more controlled by municipalities. In this way forced labour harms community and volunteer work, and other activities outside of the capitalist logic that make life worthwhile for many people.

Profit and loss

When we start looking at the financial question from bottom-up things actually become quite simple. The extra revenues that this substitution generates for bosses and municipalities equals exactly the amount that all forced labourers, interns and work experience placements together lose compared to when they would receive a regular (collective labour agreement or adult) minimum wage. This is the amount that the working class as a whole is being deprived of, on top of the added value they produce and that is always appropriated by the capitalist class anyway. These calculations can also easily be made for individual cases: how much money does a benefit claimant who works, receive less compared to when he or she would be paid a regular wage. And if we would add these sums for the by now estimated tens of thousands of forced labourers we quickly end up with huge amounts. In Leiden the forced labourers officially have to work 26 hours a week, and as a result the minimum wage for the hours worked would be exactly the same as their benefits. This would be a financial-technical way to prevent substitution, but in practice most forced labourers work far more than 26 hours. In addition the forced labour placements continue to substitute regular jobs with regular labour rights.

If you look at it from the bottom up it is a false argument used by employers and municipalities, that forced labourers, interns and youth work placements have to learn the work and produce less so should get paid less. Not only is their production not always lower, in some cases it is even higher. The point is that this growing group of underpaid or not paid labourers have to pay for their housing, food, clothing and insurances just like anyone else. It is not about productivity as it is with old-fashioned piece rate, but about the time that workers give to their bosses. The workers can only make use of their time once, and this is a problem when due to these forms of underpayment more and more people working during all the working hours they have only receive an income that is not even a living wage. The issue should be a decent living wage for everyone.

Eric Krebbers

Source of Article: http://www.doorbraak.eu/job-substitution/

Source of Featured Image: http://simplepimple.com/2012/08/are-internships-a-form-of-modern-slavery/

After 31 days of hunger strike N. Romanos will be granted the educational leaves to be able to follow his studies with the use of an electronic position surveillance device under the condition that he will follow 1/3 of the courses of the first semester via internet.

After 31 days of hunger strike the state had to kneel down in front of the struggle for freedom. This is not only a victory of one person against the state, but a breath of freedom for everyone who is standing up against this totalitarian regime.

10/12/2014
ReINFORM

Related Articles:
Hunger strike in Greece: for a breath of freedom
Nikos Romanos: Better Dead than Educated?
Reactie regering Samaras op Romanos is symptomatisch voor algemeen beleid

Source of featured image: omniatv.com  (NIKHTHΣ means WINNER)

(Herbert Ploegman is als cultureel-antropoloog afgestudeerd aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. Momenteel bereidt hij een onderzoek voor naar nieuwe vormen van samenleven in de crisis in Griekenland.)

In Athene is de hongerstaking van anarchist en wegens een bankoverval gedetineerde Nikos Romanos een gebeurtenis van belang geworden in de strijd die regering en protesterende burgers en activisten tegen elkaar voeren. Sinds 10 november is de 21-jarige Romanos in hongerstaking wegens het niet toekennen van het recht dat hij formeel heeft op studieverlof.

Minister van justitie Charalambos Athanasiou stelde gisteren dat “al zou God zelf naar beneden komen, Romanos niet het aangevraagde studieverlof krijgt. Dit zijn de wetten”. Ook premier Samaras heeft -in een gesprek met Nikos’ vader- gezegd dat hij niets kan doen aan deze situatie. In een brief, getiteld ‘dansen met de dood voor 24 dagen’, verwijt Romanos minister Athanasiou onder meer het afdwingen van een negatieve uitspraak bij de rechtbank op de voorafgaande dag.

Op de 29e dag van de hongerstaking is een hoger beroep op toekenning van het recht afgewezen. Met de waarschuwing van zijn advocaat dat Nikos overgaat tot dorststaking groeit het risico dat hij de situatie niet overleeft. Hoewel hij hier niet op uit is, zou hij -naast zijn in 2008 door de politie doodgeschoten vriend Alexis Grigoropoulos- een martelaar kunnen worden van de linkse en anarchistische bewegingen in Athene.

De situatie lijkt op het eerste gezicht controversieel, gezien de geweldpleging waar hij deel aan had. De publieke opinie vertoont dan ook geluiden als dat het niet veilig zou zijn hem vrij (zij het met een elektronische polsband) rond te laten lopen. Daar wordt tegenover gesteld dat de overvallers tijdens hun actie de situatie hebben uitgelegd: niet de burgers waren hun doelwit, maar de banken die de bevolking (op veel grotere schaal) beroofd hebben.

Het getouwtrek rond Nikos Romanos is niet enkel iets wat een marge op extreem-links aangaat. Eerder zou de bevolking in het algemeen de marge genoemd moeten worden. De houding van de regering van Samaras tegenover Nikos Romanos ligt in feite precies in het verlengde van de houding die al langer bestaat tegenover de bevolking. Geen centimeter wordt toegegeven bij protesten tegen de onophoudelijke bezuinigingen, terwijl keer op keer sociale verworvenheden ongedaan worden gemaakt.

Een recent voorbeeld daarvan is het regeringsbesluit rond het tenietdoen van het moratorium dat lag op onteigening van de hoofdverblijfplaats van Griekse burgers. Talloze Grieken zijn door gebrek aan inkomsten en stijging van de kosten in financiële problemen geraakt. Inmiddels kunnen huiseigenaren (die een groot percentage vormen in Griekenland), ook bij relatief kleine schulden, worden onteigend. Nieuwsberichten over families die op straat of in een auto leven zijn de realiteit.

Een enkele uitzondering hierop is de watervoorziening in de grote steden Thessaloniki en Athene, die door een zelfgeorganiseerd referendum vooralsnog in publieke handen gebleven. Onder druk van de troika zouden ook deze (niet-verliesgevende) diensten moeten worden verkocht aan buitenlandse bedrijven.

Voor Nikos Romanos is het een keuze en een politieke daad om af te zien van water en ander voedsel. In eerste instantie is de aanleiding daarvoor een strijd voor zijn eigen rechten. Het is echter meer dan schrijnend om te zien hoe het politieke spel, waarbij de EU en daarmee de Europese landen evengoed betrokken zijn, van groter gewicht is dan de belangen van onze Europese medeburgers.

Source of the featured image: Dromografos

Door Ike Teuling, Campaigner Energie bij Milieudefensie

Een delegatie van Tweede Kamerleden bracht begin deze week een bezoek aan schaliegasboorlocaties van Shell in de Verenigde Staten, om meer te weten te komen over de impact van schaliegasboringen op het milieu, gezondheid en landschap en te kijken wat schaliegas Nederland kan opleveren. Shell heeft natuurlijk haar uiterste best gedaan om Kamerleden te overtuigen dat er niets mis is met schaliegas en dat boren schoon en veilig kan. Milieudefensie roept de Kamerleden op die mooie praatjes niet klakkeloos te geloven. De positieve effecten van schaliegas (voor klimaat, energievoorziening of economie) zijn op z’n minst twijfelachtig, terwijl de negatieve effecten overduidelijk zijn, zoals ondermeer blijkt uit misstanden bij Shell-boringen wereldwijd. De Kamerleden moeten de zorgen daarover van wetenschappers, waterbedrijven en de meer dan tweehonderd schaliegasvrije Nederlandse gemeenten en provincies serieuzer nemen dan de lobby van een bedrijf dat alleen haar eigen financiële belangen behartigt.

Schaliegas is in Nederland omstreden. Begin deze maand verlengde energieminister Kamp het verbod op boringen tot 2016, na fel protest van onder andere de 221 ‘schaliegasvrije’ gemeenten en 9 ‘schaliegasvrije’ provincies die terecht vrezen dat boringen leiden tot vervuiling van grondwater, aardbevingen en industrialisering van hun buitengebied. Het lijkt of Shell zich niet mengt in het Nederlandse debat over schaliegas, maar achter de schermen zet het vol in op lobby vóór schaliegas; met bijeenkomsten voor energiewoordvoerders in de Kamer, door nauwe contacten te onderhouden met het ministerie, en nu dus door Kamerleden mee te nemen naar boorlocaties in de VS.

A man walks near the spilled Shell crude oil on the shores of the Niger Delta swamps of Bodo, Nigeria.Photograph: Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP/Getty Images – Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/shell-faces-payouts-nigerian-oil-spill-case

Geloofwaardigheid
Waarom doet Shell zoveel moeite om de Nederlandse politiek te overtuigen dat schaliegas schoon en veilig is, als het geen interesse heeft in boren in Nederland? Omdat Shell er alle belang bij heeft dat hier geen verbod komt. Dan verliest het bedrijf haar geloofwaardigheid als wereldspeler op het gebied van schaliegas. Shell’s investeringen in schaliegas lopen wereldwijd in de tientallen miljarden euro’s en het oppervlak van de concessies in handen van Shell is bijna vier keer zo groot als Nederland. Maar hoe kan Shell nog aan arme Zuid-Afrikanen, Argentijnse politici, Tunesische boeren of de nieuwe Oekraïense regering verkopen dat fracken schoon en veilig is, als deze techniek in eigen land verboden is?

Dat óók Shell niet ‘schoon en veilig’ kan fracken – een voorwaarde van de PvdA voor boringen hier – blijkt uit onderzoek van Milieudefensie in Oekraïne en Argentinië, dat daar stuitte op een flink aantal dubieuze praktijken. Shell past technieken toe die in Nederland verboden zijn en schendt op meerdere vlakken zelfs haar eigen ‘Operation Principles’: in Oekraïne slaat het giftig afvalwater op in open bassins, in Argentinië boort Shell in een beschermd natuurgebied en zuivert afval een fabriek die er zeker geen Europese standaarden op na houdt. Omwonenden worden bovendien niet goed geïnformeerd of gecompenseerd bij schade. Ook in bij boorputten van Shell in de VS zijn al honderden schendingen van veiligheids- en milieuvoorschriften geregistreerd.

Methaanlekkages
De zichtbare schade die Shell nu veroorzaakt bij schaliegasboringen is nog maar het topje van de ijsberg. Niet zichtbaar is dat door het fracken de bodem een gatenkaas vol chemicaliën wordt en dat schaliegas een grote bijdrage levert aan het klimaatprobleem. Wanneer afvalwater in open bassins wordt opgeslagen, zoals Shell doet in de VS en Oekraïne, kan schaliegas door methaanlekkages zelfs schadelijker zijn voor het klimaat dan steenkool.

Shell zal er alles aan doen om voor de Kamerleden te verbergen wat de werkelijke schade is bij haar boorlocaties, net als bij schandalen in andere landen. Zoals in Nigeria waar Shell weigert verantwoordelijkheid te nemen voor olielekkages. Milieudefensie waarschuwt de Kamerleden om niet in die val van Shell te trappen en zich goed te realiseren dat de belangen van Shell in het Nederlandse schaliegasdebat gigantisch zijn. Naast de verkooppraatjes van Shell moeten zij ook goed luisteren naar de echte verhalen van omwonenden en lokale politici, en van wetenschappers en economen. Die zullen vertellen dat schaliegasboringen helemaal niet zo schoon en veilig zijn als Shell beweert. En dat schaliegas vanwege de grote onzekerheden over voorraden en winningskosten een groot financieel risico is. Shell heeft niet voor niets concessies in de VS met verlies moeten verkopen.

Ook in Nederland mogen deze geluiden niet genegeerd worden. Want Kamerleden zijn er om de belangen van burgers te behartigen, en niet die van grote bedrijven.

Source: http://www.joop.nl/opinies/detail/artikel/29150_kamerleden_laat_je_niet_inpalmen_door_shell/