A festive message on behalf of DiEM25 for 2021
I am Yanis Varoufakis with a message for the New Year from DiEM25
2020 leaves behind much debris — pain, fear, broken lives, smashed dreams. But, we also owe a debt of gratitude to 2020: It has helped expose seven fundamental secrets.
We used to think of governments as powerless. But since COVID-19 struck we know better: Governments have stupendous powers that they hitherto chose not to use, deferring to the exorbitant power of Big Business.
Yes, the money-tree does exist after all. Except, of course, that is only harvested by the powerful on behalf of the oligarchy: Money created by the rich for the rich. Solvency is a political decision because power-politics, not markets, decide who is bankrupt and who is not.
Wealth has nothing to do with hard work or entrepreneurship. America’s billionaires made 931 billion dollars from the pandemic. They got richer in their sleep.
Yes, 2020 was a vintage year for capitalists, but capitalism died! Liberated from any remaining competition, colossal platform companies like Amazon own everything. So, yes, during 2020, Capitalism morphed into an insidious Techno feudalism. Our Europe, its civilisation and power notwithstanding, continued to sell its soul in 2020.
One word suffices: Moria, the refuges prison camp in Lesbos – a mirror reflecting Europe’s cruelty and lost soul. Yes, it has been a difficult year. We lost too many people to the pandemic. We saw exploitation flourish, driving so many into the embrace of destitution. Civil liberties took a major hit. But, despite it all, 2020 let us in on a brilliant, hope-inspiring seventh secret: Everything could be different.
If this pandemic proved anything, it is that Bertolt Brecht was right when he once said:
“Because things are the way they are, things will not remain the way they are.”
I can think of no greater source of hope than this. We must thank 2020 for it. Now, it is up to us to make 2021 a year of radical change in the interests of the many. Everywhere!
Happy New Year and Carpe DiEM25!
Help us stop a retail giant destroying our city
Retail giant El Corte Inglés, has been given the green light by Porto’s mayor to build a massive shopping centre and a hotel on public land in the heart of the Portuguese city, which is set to do irreparable damage.
This mega-project threatens to put hundreds of Porto’s small shopkeepers out of business, will cause congestion and air pollution to skyrocket, and will destroy a vital piece of Porto’s historical heritage, the city’s first-ever railway station. The local chapter of DiEM25 in Porto is working on the issue.
The station was badly damaged by fire on December 11, 2020, in mysterious circumstances. It had just been submitted by a local citizens’ group for classification to be protected as a heritage site, which would have presented a block to the mega-project. El Corte Ingles denied any involvement in burning the building.
Since 1974, the land where the shopping centre is to be located had been publicly owned by different Portuguese state-owned companies. But its sale was agreed behind closed doors and without any public consultation. Crucial decisions like this, with far-reaching implications, cannot be made without consulting with citizens.
A mayor that puts private interests over citizens
Rui Moreira (Porto’s mayor) claimed in November 2019, that the city has no means nor money to stop the project from going ahead. If this is true, what does it tell us about the state of our democracies? When multinational corporations can act with impunity, foregoing democratic checks and balances, we no longer live in democracies but in societies which are controlled by oligarchies and their vested interests. Lamentably, the truth in this case is that Porto’s City Hall does have the power, namely the legal and political competence, to decide on how the land is used but no efforts have been made so far by the mayor to prevent this project from going ahead.
This shows that there is a transparency problem. Porto’s City Hall is accountable to its citizens, not to private interests. If the rationale is that the construction of the shopping centre would create jobs, then why not let the residents of the city have a say? And, furthermore, what steps did the government take to ensure transparency in the decision-making process?
Building a mall that the city doesn’t need, while ignoring alternative proposals
There is no justification for another mall in this very important area of the city. Portugal is overwhelmed with large shopping centres, and the site in question in Porto already has five shopping centres, all of them in a state of semi-abandonment, threatening to become obsolete and completely abandoned very soon. In addition, there already is an El Corte Inglés located 5km away in the neighbouring city of Gaia.
The announcement was received with concern by many citizens in Porto who preferred another solution for the area. An online petition — which gathered almost 10,000 signatures — presented an alternative: the creation of a green public space. A group of experts in railway heritage has also taken some steps to guarantee the preservation of the historical first railway station.
These two groups later merged to create the Movement for a Railway Garden in Boavista, an informal association of citizens of diverse academic, professional, and political backgrounds who advocate for the implementation of a garden and the preservation of the station. The Movement claims that a garden is necessary in this densely urbanised area of the city, much more so than a shopping centre, which will only add to the heavy car-traffic, overshadow the building of Casa da Música (an icon of Porto, designed by Rem Koolhaas), and create fierce competition with local shopkeepers.
Since then, the Movement has organised a debate with experts in industrial heritage, urbanism, and environmentalism, contacted political parties with seats in Porto’s City Hall (and other public entities), has been very active in social media and on Portuguese media, and invited some artists to come up with proposals for what a garden could look like. But the Movement’s efforts have so far been met with inaction from the public company in charge of the land and the ministry that oversees it.
It’s time to do something about it
This absence of transparency cannot exist in a democracy. The interests of Porto’s citizens must come first, and their voices must be heard.
But the fight does not end here. If you think it’s wrong that a mega-corporation can be allowed to have its way in Porto, to the detriment of the people who live there; if you would like this land to become a public garden instead, and for the historic railway station to be preserved, let’s take action.
This was written by a DiEM25 member, Davide Castro. The local chapter of the movement in Porto is currently mobilising to take action on this issue. If you’d like to get involved, get in touch!
MeRA25 MP has immunity stripped and is prosecuted for criticising the police
Ms. Adamopoulou has been accused of defamation by a local police trade union after a parliamentary speech in which she claimed, citing published material and testimonies, that plain clothes police in demonstrations act as provocateurs to initiate violence.
Members of Parliament are immune from prosecution, except if the House votes by simple majority to waive their immunity, in which case they are tried in court.
Speaking before Yanis Varoufakis, Adamopoulou made reference to several public statements by named individuals, including an ex Minister of Public Order, police spokespeople, Members of Parliament, other politicians and journalists, who have made equivalent claims in the past.
All the MPs of the ruling conservative New Democracy party as well as 4 Social Democrats formed the majority in favour of lifting her immunity. Parliamentary immunities have been lifted in the past for serious crimes and cases of defamation against specific persons, as stipulated in law. There has been no precedent of a waiver of immunity for an accusation of defamation against an impersonal group.
This will be marked in the annals of history of the Greek parliament.
In response to this egregious act of stripping the immunity from a member of parliament and the prosecution that will follow, Yanis Varoufakis said:
“Today is about a thunderous defeat of parliamentarism. That the statement for which Ms. Adamopoulou is being prosecuted is (…) not the issue here. The issue today is something much higher in the framework of parliamentarism. It is the freedom of speech of members of the Greek parliament.”
Yanis emphasised that there is no other place in Europe or even abroad where an MP is prosecuted for their opinion except for the parliaments of Turkey and Hungary, which are steered by authoritarian regimes. Indeed, as Yanis states, the first thing Orbán did was ‘terrorise the MPs’. The Orbánisation of Greece has begun.
DiEM25 brings you People’s Gatherings!
Let’s tackle the issues compounded by COVID-19 and build a Europe worth fighting for!
This holiday season, DiEM25 brings you People’s Gatherings! As a direct response to the COVID-19 crisis and the isolation we have all felt this year, this citizen engagement project will spark new conversations around the core issues plaguing our time — from austerity to the refugee crisis, from ecological breakdown to our democratic deficit in Europe, and much more! It is the first step in forging ambitious and realistic programmes for our countries, bringing the DiEM25 story closer to the citizens whose lives we want to improve.
We must gather our hearts and minds to tackle the lasting impact of COVID-19 on our communities.
Even if COVID-19 vaccines start taking effect, the socioeconomic impact of the virus will be long-lasting and will not only devastate the most vulnerable members of our communities, but will be felt across the middle class as well. COVID-19 is about to plunge the global economy, still weak from our failure to deal with the underlying causes of the previous crisis (2008), into mayhem. The way our countries are currently run is failing all of us, socially, economically, and environmentally, and has been for decades. Millions are left politically homeless or vote for extremes out of desperation: COVID-19 only exacerbated an already present crisis.
Let’s imagine and invest in new ways of living — ones different from the policies that created this mess in the first place.
Politicians and organisations that continue to prioritise the rich and powerful over everyone else cannot lead us out of the mess they have put us in.
The COVID-19 experience offers us a new foundation from which to start building, as our needs become as clear as those who stand in our way to meeting them. More than ever, we need to reach out to our neighbors, families and friends, to our old comrades and new peers — and to all the ‘others’ we have forgotten or been unable to speak to.
Let’s show people what Europe could be!
Beyond connecting and discussing with members and fellow citizens, the intended outcome of this ambitious project is to form a political programme around which we can rally to fight for our threatened futures. As a Gatherings organiser, you can help us prepare for this fight!
What is a People’s Gathering, and how can I join the project?
People’s Gatherings are meetings organised by DiEM25 members, during which we can discuss and answer the most pressing questions faced by our communities. They will be guided by questionnaires developed by our membership and the CC that refer to the most pressing political issues in the country where the events are organised.
Gatherings can include not just fellow DiEMers but anyone you think you can engage: your friends, local community leaders, policy experts, activists, or just your family members! They can take place in the park, around the dinner table, or online via conferencing software, or even while gaming online (just remember to respect COVID restrictions)! Be creative, engage as many people as you can, and download our resources here for more information.
How can I support this project?
You can find out more and become an organiser by going to our project page!
Don’t have time to organise a gathering? You can also donate to help further this project and support the development of political programmes across Europe!
Unaffordable rents are crushing people during the pandemic
We should be free from the burden of rent!
As we approach the one-year anniversary of the onset of COVID-19, the losses brought on by the pandemic — and our human emotions to it all — has generated a unique sense of unity. But as we learn to adjust our existence and inhabit our planet more sustainably, we need to deal decisively with the inequalities that are intrinsic in our social and economic lives.
The concept of home is as ancient as life. It represents a confluence of needs, wants and desires. Neoliberalism — in its march to commodify all — is deploying its full arsenal against the places one needs to rest in order to dream. This assault on sleep, on sustenance and on cleansing, creates endless anxiety for the millions who find themselves facing eviction.
The colossal rent and mortgage debt obligations — and the eruption of mass unemployment in 2020 — is imposing altered lives on so many. The time has come to act across Europe!
DiEM25 members are responding to this challenge with a campaign tackling housing issues in Europe: Rentvolution!
During the summer of 2020, DiEM25 activists in Luxembourg foresaw the rise of the housing crisis across the country and forged a coalition of concerned activists to focus on protesting for the right to housing in Luxembourg. DiEM25 members were joined by the refugee and immigrant associations, unions, Déi Lénk party and the African Diaspora organisation, Finkapé.
Volunteers across multiple organisations led localised assemblies and two protest actions in September and October 2020 which attracted considerable media attention.
In November 2020, DiEMers in Portugal held a protest in Lisbon against the continued shortage of decent housing in that city. Together with activists from Acção pela Habitação, DiEMers made their objections clear: no more empty promises from the Government on access to housing! This collective of activists has continued their actions online by bringing to light the personal situations of people facing precarious situations due to lack of affordable housing. The collective is planning an online campaign before Christmas, followed by a poster distribution campaign in January — as well as expanding the actions beyond Lisbon into its suburbs and Portugal’s second city, Porto.
In Belgium, DiEM25 members have participated in a collective protest against austerity led by La Santé en Lutte, and have been active in educating Belgians on their rights when faced with threats of home ejections with Front Anti-Expulsions. The Federal Government was presented with a comprehensive list of demands to restore the fundamental rights of citizens to housing. DiEMers have also been active in assisting around 200 undocumented refugees to remain in their squatter camp for an additional month despite threats of eviction.
The tide is turning
With this momentum, the Rentvolution! campaign is forming a transnational team to realise our demands. We are building a supporting coalition in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and other countries! An Open Letter, for simultaneous publication across Europe is being drafted, while another protest action — this time in key European cities — is being prepared for the 27th of March 2021.
Sign our petition and contact us to volunteer for the campaign in your country!
This article was authored by Amir Kiyaei who is a member of the Rentvolution! Campaign team.
Image courtesy of Charles Edward Miller.
International Migrants Day and COVID19: A call for a migrant’s lens in policy
The inclusion of migrants in national policies is essential
In 2019, there were an estimated 272 million migrants all over the world (48% of which were women) and they comprised 3.5% of the global population. Migrants are humans who move away from their place of residence, a few by choice, but more often involuntarily. Involuntary migration includes people who are displaced due to war, conflict, natural disasters, famine, other life-threatening events and/or economic reasons.
The COVID-19 pandemic further highlights the importance of mobility in our lives with vulnerable segments (women, LGBTQIA+, youth, people in conflict, and persons with disabilities) being disproportionately affected. Inspirations for safety and dignity are put to a halt, whilst economic implications viewed through a migration lens brings society at an impasse because of all the mobility restrictions that affect migration as a whole.
This health crisis calls to attention the vulnerabilities of migrants, and sheds light on their often vital front line roles in our societies. Migrants fulfill jobs essential to a variety of sectors in Europe — such as domestic work, agriculture, construction, food, education, delivery, and health care. During this crisis, migrants face additional risks to their health, employment, and security. These do not only affect them but also their families who rely on their remittances. This could lead to an increase in poverty in the Global South, and increased difficulty in access to health services. Indeed, there is an expected drop of 20% in remittances through 2020.
Racism, xenophobia, and discrimination have also been more rampant because of the current socio-economic situation. For all those reasons, the second of April DiEM25 has demanded citizenship and healthcare for refugees, migrants, and homeless in the EU. Again, DiEM25 repeats its condemnation of far-right demonstrations of hate.
Women migrant workers during this pandemic bear the compounded impacts of the health crisis
These include violence and harassment, employment vulnerabilities, income loss, social protection issues, inability to access services, and difficulty in accessing legal representation services. Women migrant workers who are still employed face a greater risk of workplace violence and exploitation. Returnee women migrant workers are also vulnerable to harassment and abuse back home as seen in an increase in intimate partner violence, and even abuse in quarantine facilities therefore isolating women further.
Similarly, domestic workers are marginalised according to class, race, and gender and suffer accordingly. They are also excluded from legal protection in more than half of the world while working long hours with inadequate wages, and exposing themselves to gender-based violence. Migrant domestic workers experience another layer of vulnerability because of their dependence on recruiters, limited freedom to change employers, and lack of access to legal remedies especially when they are in an irregular migration situation.
COVID-19 measures from governments have excluded migrants and consequently their families back home are negatively impacted
Often, legal frameworks and policies with regards to access to healthcare are national in nature, excluding migrants from such plans. Border restrictions without adequate assistance to migrants increase their vulnerabilities, while precarious work and living conditions, especially for low-waged workers, also increase their health risks as well as that of the host country.
In this spirit, DiEM25’s Plan to confront the COVID-19 crisis in Europe reiterated that “undocumented people should also be regularized and given access to social welfare or a decent job with a proper legal contract”.
As of 2017, at least 164 million people are recorded to be migrant workers. In Northern, Southern, and Western Europe collectively, 17.8% of its work force are migrants who are likely to be the first affected by layoffs, and movement restrictions. Migrants make up a high proportion of workers from sectors most affected by the pandemic trapping them without income, and mobility. Of those who were, through bilateral negotiations, able to go home, their country of origin faced increased health vulnerabilities and socio-economic pressure to respond to the influx of people. Countries that also once depended on their work now feel their absence in essential sectors.
At the end of March, Portugal has granted by decree the regularisation of refugees and migrants, allowing them to receive social services and healthcare. DiEM25 has called governments of all countries to follow Portugal’s lead.
The inclusion of migrants in national policies is an essential element of any social justice initiative
Systematically including migrant populations, especially its more vulnerable members such as women, LGBTQIA+, youth, disabled people, and people of color, through dialogue and involvement can contribute to a truly effective universal health coverage. Attention to migrants who continuously provide for essential services is needed from governments to provide appropriate support and ensure safeguards and their fundamental rights as workers.
The DiEM25 Task Force on Feminism, Diversity and Disabilities will start a campaign next year to fight domestic violence. At the intersection of immigration, precariousness and vulnerabilities women are always the ones who suffer the most, especially in migrant camps and detention centres, where women migrants suffer and are vulnerable to high rates of domestic abuse. We call on your participation to strengthen this campaign!
Email the task force at [email protected] to get involved.
Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons.
The Holberg Debate: Is global stability a pipe dream?
At the Holberg Debate, John Bolton and Yanis Varoufakis differed on their perceived threats to global stability
This year’s Holberg Debate featured two heavyweights when it comes to global affairs: Professor Yanis Varoufakis and Ambassador John Bolton. They delivered an excellent exchange of ideas, showing large differences in their approaches. Varoufakis has and continues to take on the shortcomings within the European Union, through his work with MeRA25 and DiEM25, and Bolton has controversially challenged the United Nations. During his brief term, he was described by The Economist as: “The most controversial ambassador ever sent by America to the United Nations.”
For Bolton, global stability is a pipe dream
He backed up his view with what he determined were two different types of threats: strategic threats and immediate threats. As Bolton has developed a professional career in the strategic arena, it was clear that his argument would be framed from this perspective. China and Russia were his two main strategic threats, with weapons of mass destruction and what he calls ‘radical Islamism’ the immediate. He used his opening time to emphasise the possibility of ‘another 9/11’ and that “we are laying the groundwork for more to come”. He also termed the regimes in Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba as ‘authoritarian’.
It was clear from his opening statement that Bolton holds onto views that should have died at the end of the Cold War. His rampant disregard for any political economy short of rugged individualism under Capital, gives little space for any progressive movement. Moreover, his militaristic fear mongering in regard to China and Russia, echoes the type of rhetoric used by George W. Bush to invade Iraq — An invasion strongly supported by Bolton. One viewer of the debate commented:
“I find John Bolton’s world view terrifying. Structures for threat mitigation (until the threats disappear in and of themselves) — sounds like endless war. (…) I’m glad we have people like Yanis trying to think strategically, even if for now he’s a voice in the wilderness.”
The imperialist perspective of Bolton highlights a desire to see the United States’ political and economic ideology maintain dominance. His analysis of global stability completely ignores US involvement in global destabilisation. From its competence in handling the COVID-19 pandemic; the overt misinformation campaigns against other sovereign nations, climate science, and economics; through to sanctioned invasions and coup d’état’s.
For Varoufakis, global stability can be achieved if we tackle common systemic threats
Varoufakis conceived of global threats through a different framework that focused on common systemic issues, rather than ‘threats from the other’. As an economist and politician, he drew on his expertise and experience to highlight two different distinctions when it came to the threats to global stability. What he calls Primitive instability: being the rivalry between superpowers, and systematic instability: being the climate and economic emergencies – which he highlights as the ‘dynamites’ of our liberal democracies. He argues for a new Bretton Woods and global economic solidarity with firm capital controls, as opposed to the use of direct threats of military intervention.
Varoufakis highlighted international cooperative action between nations. His proposal clearly indicates that stand-offs and chest beating will not lead to any form of tangible stability.
It was clear after the opening remarks that these two were coming at the problem from different political angles
Ambassador Bolton made it clear he was after a hard-line approach to China, stating: “I would rather take back the reigns of our depending on China.” He spent much of his speaking time discussing the way the Chinese do business and how they treat their people, yet seemed unwilling to push for diplomatic solutions. At one point during the debate Varoufakis asked Bolton: “Do you believe a new cold war that could lead to a hot war is really the way forward?” This question was not directly answered by the Ambassador.
On the topic of national sovereignty, both Bolton and Varoufakis agreed on their importance but disagreed on their framing. Ambassador Bolton, a long-time proponent of US sovereignty, made it clear that the sovereignty of the United States was fundamental; showing his disregard for collaboration and cooperation, for a more hegemonic modus operandi. Professor Varoufakis agreed with him that sovereignty is crucial, yet that it must be a ‘Sovereignty of we the people”. He used the sovereignty of Iceland, in their handling of the 2008 financial crisis, as to why extant sovereignty is necessary. This sovereignty positioned Iceland to keep the burden of the 2008 crisis off their people, unlike the Eurozone nations.
While military threats do exist, no amount of military intervention can stem immediate issues regarding economic and climate instability
Varoufakis was a breath of fresh air, with proposals such as a new Bretton Woods and Bolton stood firm, yet hopeful, that the threats he perceived could be overcome. His interventions argued for the principles that guide DiEM25 – transnational solidarity, etc. The issue of sovereignty; capital controls; and liberal democracy were key to his argument. His rigid stance on these areas, highlight his determination along with the vision of DiEM25 to seek peaceful, political and economic solutions in order to bring about a stability that favours the people. The scope of his arguments on systematic instability, surrounding the climate catastrophe and liberal democracy can be found in the policies of DiEM25; particularly The Green New Deal for Europe and the European New Deal.
Amidst a global pandemic, growing economic instability, persistent armed conflicts and the oncoming climate emergency, the Green New Deal for Europe is vital. Food, water and shelter insecurity; the growing insecurity of labour markets; and the refugee crisis, all provide a reality where stability is impossible. To achieve any form of global stability nation states and organisations need to work in a cooperative fashion for the sake of the people, the planet and their respective needs, not the needs of particular ideologies. The work of DiEM25 is crucial to addressing these issues in ways that ensure stability and democratic freedom.
To check out the debate, watch it above or follow this link.
Photo Source: The Holberg Prize website.
Designing a postcapitalist future in the midst of the pandemic
Doubts that our world is morally indefensible become unforgiveable when even the bankers of the ultra-rich, along with the bailiffs working diligently on their behalf, are panicking about excessive inequality.
UBS recently reported that, between April and July 2020, as the pandemic’s first wave was surging, the collective stash of the world’s billionaires grew by 28 per cent and many millionaires joined their ranks. Surely the Swiss megabank is happy to see them laughing all the way to its doors, but it is also genuinely worried.
Similarly, the International Monetary Fund, an institution which for decades operated as the global oligarchy’s bailiffs, forcing governments — including one I served in as finance minister — to pursue inequality-boosting policies including privatisation of basic services, while eliminating benefits for the dirt poor, taxes on the wealthy etcetera. The extent to which the IMF has changed its tune amounts to an Ovidian transformation.
Even before COVID-19 subdued economies and drove the weak to hopelessness, the IMF was advocating raising income taxes on the wealthy. Now, in its October 2020 World Economic Outlook report, the Washington-based institution goes further, calling for progressive taxation, capital gains, wealth and digital taxes as well as a crackdown on the tax “minimisation” schemes by multinationals.
It is not, of course, concern for the billions of people driven into despair that has energised the likes of the IMF and UBS to call for action against breathtaking inequality. Their worry is that so much wealth has been siphoned off by the rich that the spending power remaining in the hands of the many is too feeble to keep demand up and capitalism in reasonable health. Like a lethal virus that rapidly killed off its host, and thus driving itself into extinction, capitalism is undermining itself by impoverishing and disempowering the “little” people.
To see how capitalism steadily undercut itself, it helps to begin in 2008.
Following the chain reaction that began with the collapse of US investment bank Lehman Brothers in the midst of the global financial crisis, central banks around the world produced mountain ranges of dirt-cheap debt-money to refloat the financial sector. At the same time, the vast majority of the West’s population was treated to universal fiscal austerity, which limited the ability for lower and middle income earners to spend. Unable to profit from austerity-hit consumers, corporations and financiers stayed hooked up to the central banks’ constant drip-feed. But this drip feed had serious side-effects on capitalism itself.
Consider the following sequence: The Federal Reserve extends new liquidity to, say, Bank of America, at almost zero interest. To profit from it, Bank of America must lend it on, although never to the “little” people whose circumstances – and ability to repay – are diminished. So, it lends to, say, Apple, which is already awash with cash.
Why is Apple saving money, rather than investing it? Because that’s how the company maximises its profits in an environment of low consumer demand. To see this, consider that, since 2008, megafirms like Apple look at their potential customers and see a sea of increasingly impecunious “little” people. Having established a virtual monopoly over the market for their products, such as the iPhone, they understand that to maximise their profits they must restrain their output, so as to create the relative scarcity that boosts prices. Output constraints that boost prices require lower investment which, in turn, results in greater savings for Apple at the expense, again, of the “little people” who are immersed more deeply into precarious jobs.
Nevertheless, despite the fact Apple’s directors do not need the extra cash, when the Bank of America offers them what amounts to free money, they take it. What for? First, the small interest they pay is tax deductible. Secondly, they take the new money to the stock market where they use it to buy… Apple shares. The company’s share price skyrockets and, along with it, so does the executives’ salary bonuses — because they are linked to the company’s share value — as well as the stashes of the ultra-rich holding most of the company’s shares.
Apple is merely one example. The same applies to all large corporations all over the world. Between 2009 and 2020, this process prised stock prices away from the real economy. It was a time when the world of money inflated while the ratio of investment to available cash shrank to the lowest level in capitalism’s history.
The ultra-wealthy grew richer in their sleep, money and power accumulated in the hands of the 0.1 per cent, and a majority of people were held behind. Market uber-power subsequently allowed the uber-rich, and the megafirms they control, to usurp markets, buy justice, capture regulators, pad campaigns — in short, to poison liberal democracy.
That was the state of play before COVID-19 paid global capitalism a devastating visit.
The virus hit consumption and production massively and at once. Central banks felt they had no alternative but to pump even more money into the hands of the banks — hoping against hope that, this time, it would be lent to firms that invest. But why would this trick work during a pandemic when it had failed before?
It did not work and, as a result, the freshly minted trillions of central bank money led to obscene growth of stock prices at a time when average wages, prices and profits were collapsing. This is the reason for UBS’s finding that during the few short months of the pandemic, the world’s billionaires saw their wealth rise by an indecent 28 per cent.
COVID-19 was the last straw for what used to be known as capitalism: the causal link between innovation, profitability, stock prices and capital accumulation. Unbeknownst to both leftists and conservatives, the post-2008 secular stagnation combined forces with the economic impact of COVID-19 to drag us into a variety of post-capitalism.
Why post-capitalism?
Think about it: Capitalism is supposed to be a decentralised system where competition coordinates the decisions of profit-maximising economic actors that are too powerless, individually, to influence the market. Our reality, after 2008, and especially during this pandemic, is nothing like it.
Today, three companies — BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street — own at least 40 percent of all American public companies and nearly 90 per cent of those listed in the New York Stock Exchange. Tacit collusion is rampant, because every chief executive knows the parent megafirm is likely to be talking to CEOs of rival companies it owns. The result is higher prices, less innovation and stagnant wages. This system, in which Big Tech and the financial sector yield immense power, and the ultra-rich own almost everything, cannot really be described as capitalism. Techno-feudalism comes closer to capturing the spirit of the present.
Under this dystopic post-capitalism, our techno-feudal lords have the power to manipulate our behaviour at an industrial scale advertisers could never even dream of. Moreover, whereas in years past, extreme poverty hit mostly the unskilled, the rural and the marginalised workers, now it is spreading to white collar professionals, to well-educated people stuck at home or in sectors fast declining, to fading city centres, to artists, musicians and people that used to survive well by doing creative things while doing odd jobs.
If I am right that we are already in the early phase of a spontaneously evolved grim post-capitalism, maybe it is time to start designing, rationally and together, a desirable post-capitalism. But where to begin?
First, suppose that was automatically to grant each person a free, digital bank account. Then, instead of lending to commercial banks in the hope that the money will trickle down to the “little” people, the central bank could credit a certain amount to everyone, with the government taxing that sum at the end of the year, depending on one’s total income. The central bank could go even further by granting every newborn an account with, say, $100,000 to be spent as an adult on education, setting up a business or some other creative project – in effect, a trust fund for every baby.
Secondly, central banks can agree to create a digital accounting unit, let’s call it the Kosmos, in which all international trade and cross-border money transfers are denominated with a free-floating exchange rate between national currencies and the Kosmos. This would allow to tax every trade deficit, every trade surplus, and every surge of capital out of, or into, any country, so that Kosmos units accumulate steadily in a Global Sovereign Wealth Fund, which are used to finance green transition projects in developing countries.
While these ideas alone are not a complete blueprint of “another now”, they offer insights into what we can actually do now, instead of merely lamenting the rise of the new feudalism that is threatening our species.
To that effect, I recently published Another Now: Dispatches from an alternative present (London: The Bodley Head), a book offering such a vision, its controversial premise being that only by ending capitalism fully (i.e. eradicating labour and share markets) can a fully-fledged competitive, and democratic, market economy emerge.
This article was originally published in The Saturday paper, as a part of its ‘After the Virus’ series.
Donald Trump may be gone, but misinformation is here to stay
Close results from the US election last month show a split nation.
Many point to the spread of so-called “fake news”, or misinformation, as the reason for the divide. While misinformation has long existed, social media platforms provide fast and wide access to deceptive and divisive news stories. Find out how we got here, the future of fake news, and what challenges President-elect Joe Biden will have to face to ‘heal’ the nation.
2016: The social media election.
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump saw a new political battleground during the 2016 election: social media. To assert their social media footprint, each campaign employed an ‘army’ of bots.
Bots are designed to post content automatically and without human involvement. While most bots are constructed to be helpful — like the Netflix bot which tweets out new releases on the platform — Trump and Clinton’s bots were created to ‘manipulate’ online opinion. They did so by interacting on Twitter like a normal human user, including “posting, following, replying, and retweeting.” Likeness to human users didn’t end there — Clinton and Trump bots “resembled real people”, complete with a bio and profile photo.
Both candidates were estimated to have over a million fake followers in 2016, many of them bots. To make a further impact on social media, bots from each campaign would form ‘botnets’, bot networks that work “in concert” by following each other and sharing similar content. Clinton and Trump bots were particularly active during pivotal moments of the presidential campaign, like influencing opinion on “who won a debate.”
Naturally, bots employed by the competing campaigns shared differing opinions, resulting in “echo chambers” with less bipartisan news — and fertile ground for bots to play a “major role” in sharing misinformation.
Election invasion, hacking or interference?
Bots employed by Trump and Clinton are not what’s remembered from the 2016 Election. At least not as much as Russian troll farms. Trolls farms are an organisation of internet users working to spread misinformation online.
In the 2016 Presidential election, Russian nationals working for the Internet Research Agency(IRA) – a troll farm – were allegedly employed to “sow discord” within the United States. IRA employees reportedly used “stolen identities” of Americans to spread fake news on social media, everything from popular Facebook groups on the political Left and Right to organizing in-person rallies. The effect was so successful, Clinton supporters claim IRA’s Russian troll farm swayed the election in Donald Trump’s favor.
Other countries soon began following the Russian model. By 2019, governments in at least 70 countries were using bots, fake social media accounts, and troll farms to shape public opinion. Countries using these forms of disinformation include smaller countries like Eritrea to the United States, Great Britain, and Germany. .
2020 and beyond.
In 2020, misinformation on social media is even harder to detect. Artificial intelligence (AI) has provided bots with improved ‘language’ skills, allowing for a ‘more subtle’ human-like approach when influencing opinion.
Some warn this type of bot technology will advance far enough to “drown out” human discourse on social media. This runs parallel with a rise in censorship of whistleblower leaks on social media, which DiEM25 has written about previously.
Troll farms are also becoming harder to distinguish from standard political campaigning. A month before the US election, news broke that a group of young conservative activists in Arizona was hired by the Trump-connected Charlie Kirk to operate a troll farm. Kirk, however, denies the comparison and equates the online posting to campaign “fieldwork”.
A similarly ambiguous label — “experimenting” — was applied when Democratic Party-connected US cybersecurity firm New Knowledge employed tactics used by the Russian Internet Research Agency during an 2017 election for the US Senate. Like Clinton followers in the aftermath of the 2016 election, some believe the tactics of bots, troll farms, and other forms of misinformation were effective enough to sway the outcome and oust the incumbent.
As a result, governments have found overwhelming the public discourse with misinformation is more effective than outright censorship.
Rescuing social media from misinformation.
At DiEM25, we’ve long argued for a public takeover of social media.
This means ending the testing of social media on the populous without some gain for those using the platform. Rather than profits only for private investors, society can take part and democratize the global conversation.
On the flip side, this does not mean censoring views we do not like. On the contrary. The monopolistic approach held by companies like Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms reward misinformation. How? By constructing an algorithm that keeps users in an echo chamber — only to then sell off information on these users to nameless advertisers, if not worse.
By spreading the wealth created by social media platforms, along with stronger digital rights for users, we as a society can build and profit rather than remain exploited serfs tilling the digital landscape.
Photo Source: Pexels.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect DiEM25’s official policies or positions.