Yanis Varoufakis on the consequences of capitalism in 2021
Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, and Lisa Graves discussed the consequences of capitalism as a part of Noam Chomsky’s Consequences of Capitalism class at the University of Arizona.
Lisa Graves is a progressive activist who is senior fellow and former executive director of the Centre for Media and Democracy (CMD) and is the president of True North Research.
You can watch the full video here!
Overview
In his talk, Yanis Varoufakis went over the following topics:
- Competitive markets: Recounting the standard argument with Adam Smith onwards in favour of a market society.
- Oligopolies: Capitalism became successful only when it killed off competition, and moved on from its competitive phase 19th century to its oligopoly phase — the mega firm foundations of capitalism beginning with the second industrial revolution.
- Commodification: Commodification paved the ground for capitalism and was turbocharged by capitalism.
- 2008: 2008 was our generation’s 1929 — the world changed.
- Consequences: the ways in which capitalism has affected the world today.
In support of Ken Loach in the face of absurd accusations of antisemitism
So, it’s come to that: Ken Loach is now the target of a character assassination campaign waged by those who will stop at nothing to shield the Apartheid policies of Israel. Their message to people of good conscience is simple: Unless you too want to be tainted as an antisemite, keep quiet about the crimes against humanity and the assault on human rights in the land of Palestine. They are putting the rest of us on notice: “If we can do this to Ken Loach, a man who has spent his life championing the victims of oppression, racism and discrimination, imagine what we shall do to you. If you dare support the Palestinians’ human rights, we will claim that you hate the Jews.”
Thankfully, no smear campaign against Ken Loach can succeed
Not only because Ken’s work and life are proof of the accusation’s absurdity but also because of the courageous Israelis who take awful risks by defending the right of Jews and non-Jews alike to criticise Israel. For instance, this group of academics who have methodically deconstructed the IHRA’s indefensible definition of antisemitism, which conflates it with legitimate criticisms of Israel that many progressive Israelis share. Or the wonderful people working with the Israeli human rights organisation B’TSELEM to resist the apartheid policies of successive Israeli governments. I am just as grateful to them as I am to my friend and mentor Ken Loach.
Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons.
DiEM TV: Let’s Talk It Over with Frank Barat, Yanis Varoufakis, Roger Waters, Noura Erakat
Trumpism after Trump
Does the end of Trump marks the end of trumpism? What next for the movement for social justice in the USA and abroad?
Noura Erakat, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, Roger Waters and Yanis Varoufakis discuss America after Trump and more in the premiere of Let’s Talk it Over.
Watch it now!
Highlights
Trumpism today
“I am shit scared that while Trump is exiting the scene, Trump is maybe getting stronger or at least not loosening its evil grip over tens of millions of people in the US and beyond. Because let’s face it, there is a neo-fascist international at work — from India with Modi to Bolsonaro here in Europe; it’s ultra-right wing galore. For a while now, I’ve been worried, for a very long while because, if you think about it after 1929 the weimar republic in the name of democracy subjected the humiliated german people to harsh austerity for the many while the oligarchy was being salvaged. Hitler promised to make them great again in exchange of their soul and the complete subjugation of the people. After our generation’s 1929 which as we all know happened in 2008 — again in Wall Street. In the name of the dispossessed the radical center of Obama, Larry Summers (…) they practiced a very interesting regime; I call it socialism for the bankers and harsh austerity for everybody else. Coupled with workplace exploitation, the Amazons, the techno feudalism that we’re seeing, that created a new fascist movement — first it was the headless tea party and then they found a head in the figure of the Mussolini-like Donald Trump. Who promised (…) exactly like Hitler and Mussolini to make people great again, humiliated people great again in exchange of again their soul and complete subjugation.” — Yanis Varoufakis
“There are two difference with the fascists of the 1920s and 30s — and it is the reason why Trump is not still in power, it is the reason why his coup d’état hasn’t succeed. The first one is that central banks after 1929 didn’t do much to help the bankers whereas now they have been pumping out mountain ranges of money to support them. And the second reason is that industrialists — big tech now — have not backed the fascists in the way that they did in the mid war period. But while that has ensured that Trump has not stayed in power — because a large section of the establishment did not support him, they supported Biden — that’s no reason to think that Trumpism is out because the causes of Trumpism are still with us and I very much fear that with Biden they are going to get even reinforced.” — Yanis Varoufakis
“What do we do to end Trumpism, not just Trump? Two things: We need a serious agenda of radical change by which to challenge not only the Republicans but also Biden and we need a humanist embracing of the Trumpists (…) not to vilify them, not to treat them like vermin in a zoo but to treat them like human beings who have surrendered to despair in the same way that many supporters of strongmen have done in the 1920s and 30s.” — Yanis Varoufakis
On America as Empire
“The lesson that we are learning here is not about Trump vs Biden but about US empire, which begins within its borders because of the colonization of indigenous peoples on these lands as well as the enslavement of Africans and the continuous racial domination of them which is colonial in nature. Even examining that part of it shatters for us the idea that America is exceptional and that all it needs to do is fulfill its dream of becoming a more ‘perfect democracy’ and now it’s dealing with its imperfections. Going from there, understand America as empire, helps us understand that it also continues to function as such across the globe through its occupation of Hawaii, where it maintains its largest military base in Honolulu, (…) thinking of its military bases across the middle east and of course its relationship to Israel (…) My point was to say not to fetishize Trump because what ends up happening is that we miss the bigger picture — (…) you called it trumpism and I think Roger was right to call fascism and we can continue to call forms of colonial and racial domination.” — Noura Erakat
On Biden’s claim to ‘Heal America’
“[Neoliberalism] has been a bedrock of American governance for the better part of 50 years which has really corroded public institutions, (…) this is the reason there can’t be coherent sensible vaccine distribution. It’s a private sector free for all. All of this has left the US government ill equipped to deal with the most dire crisis of modern American history the twin crises of the pandemic (…) the economic crisis. The US’ public sector has been gutted, it barely functions. All of that has contributed to the despair, the malaise that pervades politics in this country. If the democrats want to pose a serious challenge to the underlying features of Trumpism, then they’re going to respond to that and they’re going to have to demonstrate government as functional, competent and capable of delivering the goods and that creates a political dilemma because that means challenging the Washington consensus as it has been for the last 40 years.” — Keeanga Yamahtta Taylor
How to address Trumpists
“I think we need to reckon with white supremacy as an organising principle. I think we need to not focus on the individual.” — Noura Erakat
“We have to talk about the failures of American capitalism to actually be able to respond to the crises in people’s lives. (…) If we look at the reasons why Trump was elected and who constitute the core of his base, it is impossible to discuss that without talking about racism.” — Keeanga Yamahtta Taylor
“There is no doubt that the 75 mill that voted for him are either tolerant of racism, are actively racist or become actively racist. But people are not born racist, they are made racist, and they are made racist by circumstances not of their choosing. (…) It is perfectly possible to (…) put white supremacy on trial while treating the people who have become victims of it and (…) to extend a brotherly and sisterly hand to them and say: talk to me.” — Yanis Varoufakis
Biden Administration pursues extradition of Julian Assange
The Biden administration will appeal decision to deny extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
The quiet announcement — released amidst former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial, President Biden’s cabinet nomination hearings, and COVID-19 relief negotiations — signaled that a war on whistleblowing will continue no matter who occupies the Oval Office in Washington.
The US vs Julian Assange
Free speech advocates were elated last month when UK judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that Assange could not be extradited to the United States due to possible “suicide risk” in a US federal prison.
Though the good news was quickly dashed after Judge Baraitser denied a bail request for Assange a few days later. The refusal to grant bail was made worse when joined with the judge’s comments about Julian’s case and the work done by Wikileaks, which she characterized as “unlawful” and “not protected by claims [Assange] was acting as a journalist.”
The US, now under President Biden, will “defend” inmate handling within US federal prisons in an effort to reverse the judge’s original ruling denying extradition. US Justice Department spokesperson Marc Rainmondi confirmed this in unequivocal terms last Friday: “Yes, we filed an appeal and we are continuing to pursue extradition.”
Biden himself has been conspicuously silent on the Assange case since taking office last month. Though in 2010 he referred to Assange as a “hi-tech terrorist” and, when asked about the case during the 2020 election, suggested the Wikileaks founder was not “immunized” from prosecution if the allegations of hacking put forth by the US Justice Department were true.
If extradited to the US, Assange faces up to 175 years in jail. DiEM25 has previously written about the US government charges against Assange and why they constitute an attack on freedom of speech and whistleblowing.
A cause for hope?
Pursuit of Julian Assange by the Biden administration may not last.
Spokesperson Raimondi is a holdover from the Trump administration. Merrick Garland, the Biden administration’s nominee for the Department of Justice (which oversees the Assange case) may act differently after confirmation by the US Congress. There is further hope given Garland’s history siding on free speech cases.
Human rights organizations have also put pressure on the new Biden administration to drop the charges; calling on him to put a stop to the ‘criminalization of the key tools of investigative journalism that are essential for a healthy democracy’.
We at DiEM25 vigorously oppose attacks, whether personal or professional and by governments or private corporations, on those who risk everything to come forward and expose corruption. We call on the Biden administration to drop the unconstitutional indictment of Julian Assange and accept the decision of the British judge not to extradite him.
We passionately ask you to sign our petition in support of Julian Assange. It already has more than 11,000 signatures; let’s continue to make our voices heard!
DiEM Voice — the movement’s arts and culture platform — is also hosting an open call for works on the subject on Julian Assange. Find out more and submit to the open call here.
Until then, #FreeAssange!
Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons.
Europe must advance sexual rights in 2021
14 February is commemorated as the European Day on Sexual Health. This day is in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “the right to sexual and reproductive health as ‘a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity’.”
In understanding the significance of this day, it is important to recognize surrounding discussions such as sexuality, and sexual and reproductive rights. Several definitions of key concepts are found on the WHO website here. Most importantly, sexual and reproductive health are interconnected and aligned with several human rights, including three out of the four core ones that are also seen as non-derogable under any circumstance. These include the right to life, the right to be free from torture and other inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery or servitude.
Sexuality and sexual health
In order to advance and achieve sexual rights effectively, related issues such as sexual violence, the concept of consent (see consent laws in Europe here), rape (and the various legislations around Europe), funds shifting from sexual health to COVID-19 and varied impacts of the pandemic on sexual reproductive health (SRH), abortion (discussions here as well), transgender rights on sexual health and self-identity, and many others need to be brought to the table and included in all deliberations.
Sexuality and sexual health are often seen through the lenses of biology and medicine only, while ignoring social and structural determinants of health; such as gender (including gender identity and sexual orientation), age, ableism, socio-economic status, rural or urban residence, literacy, religion and beliefs and other intersecting issues.
Therefore, crucial topics are often overlooked, like women’s physical and psychological autonomy or the right to gender self-determination (see Spain’s new proposals for transgender legislation and the EU’s own working paper). Tackling such topics takes head on the right of a life free of violence for all women and girls worldwide, a reality that every year seems as far away as ever. According to UN Women, last year 243 million women and girls (age 15-49) suffered some form of physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner, a statistic that does not consider a wider incidence of gender based violence nor the vast amount of unreported cases. Women are stigmatized and discouraged from reporting sexual violence (gender data gap, especially when it comes to sexual and gender-based violence).
The International Planned Parenthood Federation Declaration on sexual rights (2008) is clear. Women with learning disabilities have the same human rights as all women. Those rights include the right not to be subjected to arbitrary interference with privacy which is essential to the exercise of sexual autonomy; the opportunity to have control and decide freely on matters related to sexuality; to choose their sexual partners; access to information about sexuality in an understandable language; to choose whether or not to marry, whether or not to found and plan a family.
Unfortunately, in many areas, both as a matter of law and custom, these rights are routinely breached. Women and men with learning disabilities may be denied information and actively discouraged from forming intimate and sexual relationships. Many women are sterilised or given long-acting contraceptives without due regard to their wishes or informed consent. Not only does this breach their human rights, by denying them the opportunity to learn both facts and skills needed to negotiate sexual relationships, but they are also made more vulnerable to sexual abuse. We must assert their rights and support them to challenge legal discrimination, access appropriate education, and person-centred contraceptive and fertility services.
The effects of the pandemic and deteriorating rights in Europe
COVID-19 has aggravated gender-based violence, for example in France there has been a 30% increase in calls and/or domestic violence reports since the pandemic started. The pandemic has also worsened other sexual health related issues. HIV funding declined because of the shift in financing and donations towards COVID-19 related research and facilities, widening the gap of funding for HIV/AIDS especially for low and middle-income countries. HIV treatment interruptions can cause more deaths, which also exposes the weakness of sexual health care. As Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS states:
”There is a risk that the hard-earned gains of the AIDS response will be sacrificed to the fight against COVID-19, but the right to health means that no one disease should be fought at the expense of the other.”
The enshrinement of sexual health rights in laws at the national and international level allows women to make informed decisions on their reproductive choices with full autonomy: decision-making is a self-empowerment tool itself. The near-total ban on abortion in Poland is an example of the inhumanity and the disintegration of human rights with regards to sexual health that can set the precedence for spreading feudal and conservative practices across Europe starting from the control of women’s bodies, to the LGBTQIA+ community through to society at large. There is no single person not affected by SRH.
On the other hand, we welcome initiatives such as the one promoted in Scotland, the first country ever where menstruation hygiene products are free, known as The Period Products (Free Provision) (Scotland), and we encourage the European States to follow the example and start providing such items, for example, at learning facilities.
Reproductive education and rights is a necessity
Reproductive education and rights also lead the way for children and young people to learn about consent, their bodies, safe and healthy relationships, and at the same time, recognize abuse and harassment earlier on. Viewing sexual health through this perspective addresses the cycles of poverty, and violence that young people are subjected to because of the lack of sexual health related education and support.
It is also especially and tragically true when addressing sexual health for stigmatised and pathologised sections of society. Historic stigmatisation of the queer community, especially the transgender community, has driven underground the management of sexual health issues, with all the associated dangers that entails. Equal access to health care for transgender people is a fundamental human right that ensures the ability of trans people to effectively participate and fully integrate in society. There is a lack of recommendations or best practices for health professionals in the EU in general which makes access to health and sexual health provision not only difficult but also stigmatizing, dissuading transgender people in general from accessing generalised health care and especially trans-specific health care.
Access to necessary and vital sexual health care is dependent not only on the provision of free and accessible services but is also directly related to the level of discrimination and stigmatization that transgender people suffer in society in general. Social exclusion has deep impacts on mental, emotional, and physical health, affecting accessibility to health services and especially sexual health services and trans-specific health care.
Recent developments regarding Trans health care in Europe have been less than encouraging, especially when we see developments in Hungary where transgender rights are being actively undermined as part of a broader reactionary policy push. However, the continuing pathologisation of trans people, which mirrors the same path afforded homosexuality, for example, means a lot has still to be done because the path to equal access to sexual health care is through an end of all forms of discrimination.
There is much need for an intersectional holistic approach to sexual rights in order to achieve a just and equitable resolution for all
In the light of all topics mentioned, we call on states and duty bearers to uphold all human rights, including sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR); and on civil society organisations, especially on feminist, LGTBIQ+, youth grassroots movements, and societies, at last, to continue advocating for them.
DiEM25 has a Task Force on Feminism, Diversity and Disabilities, and is working alongside the thematic Gender DSC (Intersectional Feminism). A campaign against domestic violence will be planned, as well as continued and organised discussions and events about intersectional issues surrounding gender, race, class, abilities, neurodivergence, and the climate and environment.
Photo Source: AJ+ on Twitter.
Catch the first episode of our DiEM Voice TV series!
DiEM TV has a new series: DiEM Voice!
DiEM TV is the movement’s radically hopeful and constructive Television programme. It now welcomes a new series which coincides with the relaunch of DiEM Voice — our arts and culture platform, whose mission is to see that art and culture is extended to all corners of DiEM25.
See you on Monday, February 15 at 20:00 CET!
DiEM Voice TV: Maja Pelević in conversation with Milan Marković Matthis
In the first episode of DiEM Voice TV, Milan and Maja will be talking about their project “They live” when they became members of seven leading political parties in Serbia, how that changed their perspective on parliamentary democracy and how they look at it almost ten years later. They will also look at the role of socially engaged theatre and what are the problems and dilemmas that artists have to deal with when they work in institutions.
Check out our DiEM TV page for more information on our programming.
The Establishment seeks to maintain nuclear weapons: Here’s how to oppose them
As stated in our article on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), there are several reasons to celebrate its recent enforcement on 22 January. Firstly, it constitutes a progression in international law. Secondly, it’s a hopeful symbol for nuclear disarmament struggles around the world. And thirdly, it provides third-world-countries with a positive occasion to oppose Northern dominance. The treaty’s real world effects on the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons remain questionable, and in fact, are likely to be low, unless certain conditions are met.
It may be regarded as too early to give an assessment of the treaty’s success, as it is still in its infancy — but one glaring fact might nonetheless already allow one to take a bold stance on the matter. Namely, that neither any of the 9 nuclear weapons states, nor NATO are part of the agreement — thereby seriously undermining its stated goals from the outset. It is evident that any treaty that aims at prohibiting nuclear weapons must include the nations that hold nuclear weapons and those who support them in doing so. Without them any vision of a nuclear-free world must remain empty.
In a public statement issued with regard to the 2017 UN-conference, which initiated the treaty, NATO summarized the North’s stance on the whole matter quite aptly by simply stating that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.” In other words expressing that NATO (and therewith the nuclear weapons states within it) will not move an inch from its own volition to overcome the threat.
The other nuclear powers (outside of NATO): Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, are likely to follow suit. That is: remain unwilling to enter commitments, which would have them reduce and terminate their nuclear arsenals, as long as doing so would result in them gaining a disadvantage over their fellow nuclear weapons states.
Where must the initiative to vanquish the danger of nuclear weapons come from, if not the main military alliance in the world or the states that hold these weapons?
It certainly won’t come from the military industries which directly profit from the proliferation of the threat by their manufacturing and distributing of the weaponry. According to a report by Dutch peace organisation PAX, governments around the world are currently contracting 116 billion US dollars to private sector industries in the manufacture, development and maintenance of nuclear weapons.
The corporate sector, in turn, seem to use nuclear weapons as a pressure device, by which countries inclined to economic independence can be coerced into submission. The state disguises threats the same way that a robber uses a gun to get a cashier to empty the register for him; without actually having to use the weapon, but simply by benefiting from its threatening presence (a point Daniel Ellsberg has repeatedly stressed). Thereby, by “cast[ing] the shadow of power across the bargaining table” (former US Secretary of State, George Schultz) — or the shop counter, we might say, to remain in our picture — getting the pressured country to open up its markets and resources to foreign capital penetration.
This is a strategy which we can find expressed in the US Strategic Command’s “Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence” — a 1995 study by the defense department agency on “the role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era.” In it, STRATCOM advises US planners not to adopt such “declaratory policies” as “no first use” (of nuclear weapons) — but instead to maintain its right to a first strike-capability, even against non-nuclear states. It goes on pointing out that “nuclear weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict in which the US is engaged” and that it is therefore prudent to maintain them. It further adds that:
“It hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear potentially ‘out of control’ can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary’s decision makers. […] That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries.”
We can see this “irrational and vindictive […] national persona”, “creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary’s decision makers”, at play each time a US president announces to a designated enemy state that “all options are on the table” — including nuclear weapons. Thereby, by “cast[ing] a shadow” over the conflict, incidentally also violating international law. Namely, the UN charter, which happens to ban not only the use but also the threat of use of force, unless explicitly authorised.
Given the interests that motivate these sectors (state and private), to maintain and expand the nuclear capability of their respective countries, we can dismiss the possibility that a move toward abolishing it will come from them.
Which faction will be open for an initiative toward ending war remains in society, if it is not the state or private sector?
There is one agent in human affairs which has historically shown itself to be the main driving force behind social change — as moral progress in general: the general population. Be it factory workers in 19th century Britain fighting for the 8-hour working day and a decent wage, or German workers pressuring Reich Chancellor Bismarck into establishing the first ever national social security system in the world in 1883 (since adopted by most advanced industrial countries around the globe). Or the so called Freedom Riders: groups of white and black civil rights activists in the United States, riding buses through the south in the early 1960s, using “whites-only“ lunch-counters and restrooms at bus terminals in an attempt to overcome segregation. Or the feminist struggles, taking their origins — at least in the West — in the early parts of the last century, expanding into full-scale social movements in the 1970s and since shaping life like perhaps no other social force. Or — to draw from very recent history — the many, predominantly, young people involved in ecological movements around the world today, such as Fridays for Future or Extinction Rebellion, calling for attention to and action on the threat of ecological disaster.
All these examples of social movements show us what progress has been made and indicate what could lie in the future, if concerned people unite on such issues and demand those advances which so far they have been denied.
So too on the nuclear front. Here, people from North and South should conjoin their efforts to collectively exercise pressure on those who are currently endangering species survival with their pursuit of profit above all else (even human existence); Corporations, to restate, by seeking the profits and states by abetting them in it. Profits, again, which are made either directly through the manufacture and maintenance of nuclear weapons or indirectly through foreign capital penetration under the barrel of the nuclear gun.
These vile motives mustn’t be the only ones considered, when the question is asked: what of nuclear weapons? They must be contested and countered by people everywhere with an argument against institutionalised greed and for the preservation of human life. One organisation already doing that is ICAN: The ‘International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons’.
The realisation of the TPNW — its actual impact notwithstanding — has been through the tireless campaigning of nearly 600 non-governmental organisations in 100 countries. These organisations came together under the ICAN which took inspiration from the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). That campaign led towards the eventual entry into force of the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.
ICAN, ICBL and other civil society organisations active on elimination of weapons reflect two important and positive tendencies in the shared struggle. Firstly, these coalitions represent renewed cooperation across North-South divides, compounding social pressure on actors engaged in the nuclear weapons industry. Secondly, the vast international network provides an additional space for people-to-people dialogue and strengthening of solidarity networks dealing with the existential threats facing humanity. Further campaigning — coupled with the new international norms set by the TPNW — will broaden and deepen public discourse and awareness on this issue.
To realise the ideals of the TPNW, we require nuclear weapon states to sign onto the treaty — a feat which, while elusive, can only be achieved through the pressure of sustained mass activism.
Activists need to focus on these arguments to pressure states into formally participating in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
Europe should abide by its own legal commitments. That is, in this case, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Which under Article VI states that its members are to pursue “good faith” efforts to reduce and abolish nuclear weapons. A significant step toward reaching that goal would be made if European states signed onto the TPNW.
In addition, non-nuclear weapon states that hold nuclear weapons within their borders (four in Europe) face two additional threats; that of coming under pre-emptive attack and of accidental detonation. Although the probabilities of such occurrences are low, the resulting impacts are too devastating to even be considered as acceptable possibilities.
Furthermore, non-nuclear weapon states place enormous faith in the belief that they will be protected in the case of a nuclear attack by the nuclear weapons capability of their allies — the so-called nuclear umbrella. This is supposed to act as a deterrent against a potential first strike. This reliance on the allies’ nuclear arsenal for protection however, rests on very thin ice, since it is based on “political commitments or official statements” only. In other words, no explicit obligation — emanating from treaty texts — exists which will require the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack. This is the case for both NATO and the security arrangements that Australia, Japan and South Korea have concluded with the United States. Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, in the case of Japan and South Korea, encapsulates this mirage as such:
“The so-called “nuclear umbrella” exists only because the United States is pledged to defend Japan and South Korea and happens to possess nuclear weapons. The rest is left to the imagination.”
Since it is “left to the imagination” we might as well disband this argument for our allies’ nuclear weapons — and our supposed protection under them.
Our collective responsibility on the issue of the nuclear threat and its impact on the future of humanity necessitates action from all of us. To restate the stark choice that Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell put before the world in their famous 1955 manifesto: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”
This article was authored by Amir Kiyaei and Tom Stopford who are members of the Peace and International Policy DSC.
Photo Source: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear War on Flickr.
Greece: entrenched sexism is under the spotlight
It was 8:30am and I was cycling to work. Despite the lockdown, there were plenty of cyclists on both directions of the bicycle lane. In the next minute, a man cycled towards me from the opposite lane, smiling all the way until he passed by. That was it: he just smiled at me, without slowing down at all. That was the moment I realised that I haven’t been cat-called for almost 6 months, since I left Greece to live in the Netherlands.
In a deeply sexist, patriarchal society that is the greek one, harassment is something women learn to live with
Catcalling is a practice so common that I have lost count of how many times I have been on the receiving end of such comments from passing drivers, everytime I ‘dared’ to leave my home alone. Indeed, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Two weeks ago, sailing olympic champion Sofia Bekatorou came forward with allegations of rape by a senior executive of the Hellenic Sailing Federation. She publicly opened up about how he used his power and status to intimidate and subsequently rape her 23 years ago. In such conditions, the then-21 year old Sofia remained silent — up until now. In the public disclosure she made at first, she kept his name a secret.
This seemingly out-of-the-blue public statement was to become the beginning of the greek #MeToo movement, with other athletes and later actresses opening up about experiences of sexual abuse, harassment and intimidating behaviour by their coaches, bosses or male colleagues. The cascade of allegations especially in the entertainment industry has led the greek National Theatre’s Director to resign. It became clear that sexism takes many forms. It is not only a spectrum of abusive and discriminatory behaviour; it is a systemic problem.
Sofia Bekatorou decided to reveal the name of the man she accused of rape after the Sailing Federation tried to contradict her: ‘If it really happened, then why aren’t you giving us a name?’ was the response she had to confront. So she named the Vice President of the Hellenic Sailing Federation, also a member of the New Democracy (ND) party currently in government.
After New Democracy’s leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis took office as prime minister following the 2019 national election, a BBC journalist asked him why there were almost no women in his cabinet. His answer was either comic or tragic: ‘There were not many women who were interested in stepping into politics those days‘. Given that the majority of MeRA25 parliamentarians are women, this view is somewhat unfounded.
Of course, sexism does not start or end with a sexist government. The cases of women reporting sexual abuse by their husbands to the police and who are being sent home ‘to work it out’ are numerous. It does not start or end with Greece either, as women are vulnerable even in wealthier countries.
In order for change to come, we need to start listening and begin to understand those who have been oppressed for millennia — the women who are tentatively speaking out about sexism in the home and workplace. Those who are still fighting to be taken into account, to be regarded as people of the same worth, to be looked at as potential game changers, not just as people who deserve our support.
Women’s oppression extends on a continuum reaching across nations, class and time dimensions
Women — especially mothers — have been taking the responsibility of children nurturing and home caring without any formal recognition of their work. Since this work within the home remains unpaid, stay-at-home moms and carers are often left without any form of financial security or autonomy. As suggested in DiEM25’s Green New Deal for Europe (GNDE), the provision for a Care Income (CI) for people who are occupied either on a full or part time basis with the care of others could offer them the social and financial recognition they ought to exercise. Indeed, domestic violence tends to be present in situations where women are financially dependent on their partners.
The approach to tackling this issue should be focused on its deep systemic roots rather than be treated as a series of individual unfortunate cases.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect DiEM25’s official policies or positions.
Photo Source; EUWatch on Twitter.
Not Just Another Party – A documentary about the tenacity of hope
DiEM25 documentary tells the story of the movement as seen through the eyes of our members who participated in the success of our Greek electoral wing MeRA25
Last September, we had come up with the idea of going to Greece to record a documentary
The original plan, however, was to go there to see one of us get married to his lovely wife to-be, and have a bit of a greek party. But this awful virus intervened and halted those plans. So, we thought: what’s the second best thing, after waking up next to your wife after your wedding day? Well, of course it is waking up next to your friend, for a week non-stop, as you blink your memory into engagement, trying to recall which town you are in now.
When we landed in Athens, and shortly before we set off on the 2,000 kilometres mammoth journey, we were joined by the much beloved Jochen Schult, a fellow veteran of the 2019 European and National election campaign, who was with us throughout the trip.
We were on a small budget of 1,500 euros so bed-sharing was the only way we would manage to get the documentary done. We had no idea what story we would be able to tell before we met with the people we interviewed. We only knew that there was a story to be told, a story we wanted to tell, one that had for too long been submerged by the mainstream propaganda surrounding the events of 2015 in Greece. And so we set off.
As we travelled from place to place in a borrowed vehicle, we encountered some new faces and re-encountered some old ones. Carrying a small tripod, a camera and a microphone (all of which were also borrowed), we covered the distance in 5 days, to meet some of the people who helped take our movement, DiEM25, into the Greek Parliament.
Afterwards, when we landed back in Brussels, we knew it would be difficult to get it done in time. We had over 7 hours of footage that had to be ordered and distilled into a 30-minute documentary. We knew it would push us to our limits, or thereabouts, to finish it before Erik had to leave back to Greece in February 2021 to start his mandatory 11-month military service with the Greek navy. But, after many sleepless nights, a lot of discussion, passion and love, we finally did it.
The end result is this documentary, which tells the story of DiEM25, seen through the eyes of the people we spoke to, and the work they have put into our common struggle. Released yesterday to commemorate the first half-decade of DiEM25: it is a celebration of the tenacity of hope and the incredible achievements that are possible, when people dare to believe in alternatives.
Greece is the first country where DiEM25’s seeds were planted and the film poses the questions: what will they grow into, and where will they be planted next?
Lastly, we just want to say a massive thank you to every single person we met on our journey. This film is dedicated to you, and it is dedicated to the hundreds of thousands of other human beings out there fighting for a just world for all.
Thank you for your support. And if you liked this, please support DiEM25 so that we can continue to make more like it.
Music by the excellent Bassel Abou Fakher
Creative Assistance by the awesome Max van Hede
Assistant producers Jochen Schult and Ivana Nenadovic
Photo Source: Still from the documentary.
Read more about DiEM25’s journey over the last five years here.