A group of researchers interrupted a lecture by EU President Van Rompuy and tagged 95 theses onto the door of the Church where he was speaking.
This list of theses was pinned to the door of the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, while EU President Herman Van Rompuy was delivering a lecture on the political and economic crisis. It was prepared by a group of concerned PhD researchers associated with with the Collettivo Prezzemolo. These are just some issues we came up with — the list is obviously not meant to be exhaustive. For more theses, consult the peoples of Europe!
1. No to austerity!
2. Forgive the debt!
3. Strengthen the welfare state!
4. Redistribute wealth – tax the rich!
5. Defend social rights!
6. End labor market precarity!
7. Combat wage stagnation!
8. Establish a minimum income scheme!
9. Invest in free, high-quality public health!
10. This is not a clash of generations – defend pension rights!
11. End the privatization of public goods and state assets!
12. No to bankocracy – too big to fail is too big to exist!
13. People before profits – bail out the people not the banks!
14. No to the rule of the rating agency oligopoly!
15. End the ECB’s obsession with inflation control!
16. Troika out of Greece!
17. IMF and ECB out of Italy, Ireland and Portugal!
18. Institute a common European debt!
19. Institute capital controls!
20. Institute a financial transaction tax!
21. Regulate the financial sector!
22. Outlaw over-the-counter commodity speculation!
23. Nationalize failing banks and restructure them into cooperatives!
24. Break up investment and retail banks!
25. Crack down on offshore tax havens!
26. If corporations are legal persons, why aren’t they paying taxes?
27. Curtail corporate lobbying in Brussels!
28. No common currency without a common democracy!
29. You can’t balance the budget with a democratic deficit!
30. Elect the President!
31. Allow us to remove the President!
32. Elect the Commission!
33. Allow us to dismiss the Commission!
34. Empower and downscale the European Parliament!
35. Bring EU bureaucrat pay back in line with common standards (and tax it)!
36. What about the Irish referendums?
37. What about the Dutch referendum?
38. What about the French referendum?
39. Why were we so afraid of a Greek referendum?
40. Stop coddling up to corrupt national elites at the expense of the people!
41. Don’t play us apart – defend cross-national solidarity!
42. Don’t blame the lack of a public sphere – the peoples of Europe exist!
43. Define our borders inclusively, not exclusively!
44. End the illegal war on terror!
45. Stop coddling up to dictators!
46. Prosecute all war criminals!
47. End the EU-condoned oppression of the Palestinian people!
48. Ban arms sales to Greece and authoritarian regimes outside of Europe!
49. Stop cracking down on pro-democracy protests at home while encouraging them abroad!
50. Develop our own democracy, don’t just export this flawed system as if it were perfect!
51. Don’t produce elitist expat multiculturalism – aim for a multicultural society on all levels!
52. No to Fortress Europe! No to FRONTEX!
53. End the internment and criminalization of immigrants on Europe’s margins!
54. Free and high-quality public education for all!
55. Promote socially-relevant research!
56. Stop the hypocrisy of the Lisbon Agenda!
57. Expand the Erasmus program – it is the only European policy that actually works!
58. Live up to article 2 of the TEU – respect human dignity, freedom, democracy and equality!
59. Defend immigrants’ rights at home!
60. End institutionalized xenophobia – stop the crackdown on immigration!
61. No more detention centers!
62. Enact visa reciprocity for non-EU countries!
63. The Polish plumber is not taking away our jobs!
64. Europe has gone cold turkey!
65. Crack down on human and sex slavery!
66. Asylum is a basic human right!
67. Stop the racism of Italian and Hungarian parliaments!
68. End the oppression and criminalization of Roma citizens and all other minorities!
69. End the reproduction of homophobia through state institutions!
70. Promote gender equality in politics and the working place!
71. Create free public kindergartens across the EU!
72. Abolish the EU Carbon Trading Scheme!
73. Institute an EU-wide carbon tax!
74. Pursue massive public investments in renewable energy!
75. End our continued dependence on nuclear energy!
76. Invest in high-quality and sustainable public transport!
77. End our overdependence on air travel – create a continental public transport system!
78. Stop promoting unrestrained and mindless consumption!
79. Subsidize small organic farms – not large industrial conglomerates!
80. Promote food sovereignty – not WTO principles!
81. Stop plundering fish stocks off the Western Saharan coast!
82. Protect oceanic ecosystems – ban bottom trawling!
83. Institute a pan-European ban on GMOs!
84. Defend Europe’s most beautiful regions from the destructive forces of mass tourism!
85. More internal welfare transfers to end regional disparities!
86. It takes a couple of Zimbabwean welfare states to build a Scandinavian one!
87. Live up to our Millennium Promises – raise the Official Development Assistance budget!
88. End the obsession with free trade – promote fair trade practices!
89. No to intellectual property rights!
90. Defend the right to peaceful protest!
91. End police militarization!
92. Long live the occupations!
93. Power to the people’s assemblies!
94. The revolution will not be privatized!
95. For more theses, consult the peoples of Europe.
REAL DEMOCRACY NOW!
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
It is good and great to protest and be vocal. However, it appears that many Europeans expect their entitlements to continue.
Europe and USA have ripped off the rest of the world for centuries. With the collapse that is coming and a new system established that is more fair, entitlements like long vacations and fat pensions will end. When everyone in world has similar standard of living it won’t look like the recent bubble of European privilege.
And how is it that such educated people forget that resources are in decline? Nothing will be cheaper, it will be more scarce and rationed among 7 billion people. Lists that include entitlements are like tears over spilled milk.
Ray Songtree
TheWomensPage.Net
You seem to have forgotten that the real privileges are not shared by the 99 percent, but by the 1 percent. Effective taxation of financial transactions, capital stocks and high incomes could easily pay for a fairer and more just society. This is not about acquiring more resources, but about distributing the the burden of adjustment for their decline in a more equal fashion.
I agree with many of the points, of course, but in general, the expectations of the rich countries is not in line with rest of world. The 20% of wealthy countries control the 80% of poor, example, France in Africa. When we bring down the 1%, we rich people cannot expect so much comfort. Blood for oil and slavery for iphones has to end and that will change our standard of living. Also, many of the demands are about adjusting the present system. The system is about to collapse. The 1% want this so they can replace it with THEIR system and this is what we must prevent.
You need to understand that EU was one of the biggest fiascos. Can you tie 25 different countries, with different approaches, languages and history for a common goal? Probably not.
Of course I am in favour of interculturalism and co-existance, of course I strongly believe it is time to bring people from all these different countries together, to understand and hep one another – nationalism must be overcome by any means – but EU has nothing to do with uniting the people. It simply forces them all to work towards a common (irrational) goal (that suits the elites) by turning a blind eye on huge differences; Italians, Greeks, Germans, British… all these groups have adopted a specific ways of life, they do and approach things completely differently… can you tell them, “join forces now for a common (economic) goal”? Of course not.
So all this mess, the northerners blaming the south Europeans for “being lazy and irresponsible” is not something really new. It has to do with our cultural differences and tensions that existed way before the creation of the EU but were ignored for so long thanks to this temporary economic prosperity. The crisis only brought these issues to the surface. Any attempt to mix up cultural groups without previously making efforts to bring them in contact leads to a disaster like this.
The problem isn’t the EU, it’s centralization and, more importantly, capitalism.
The economic reality for every country, particularly for tiny ones like Hungary or Slovakia, is they cannot go it alone. No nation has enough resources so that they needn’t import. We are all dependent upon one another, whether anybody likes it or not. Forging an international body to regulate interstate affairs is an enormous benefit, especially to those nations who would otherwise be forced to capitulate to larger nations in the long run (again Hungary is a good example).
And let us not forget that the EU means no more war in Europe. About 50 million dead in the last century in Europe’s wars, averting a recurrence is THE most important thing.
You might read Spinelli’s Ventotene Manifesto. He’s the father of the World Federalist movement which spawned the EU. And please don’t be misled by the shameless apprpriation of his image by the Lords of Capital who have transformed him into a fervent supporter of capitalism. The real Spinnelli was quite different.
Hey Dave, very interesting points here — particularly in contrast to the other comment you made. I fully agree with everything you write here, although there’s an important observation to be made. Spinelli’s socialist federalism used to be one of my sources of inspiration, but I stopped referencing him the moment he was appropriated by Europe’s (neo)liberal cosmopolitans. What a terrible shame. That said, however, Spinelli ended up much more reformist and liberal in his ideology than the majority of the people who drew up the 95 theses. There appears to be a bit of a contraction in your argument here.
Perhaps I need to revisit Spinelli–it’s been decades–but I have no recollection of ‘socialist federalism’. It’s true that at the end he, in keeping with the fed’ principle, advocated the coexistence of capitalist and collectivist states, but he never endorsed neoliberalism, which is what we are being told nowadays. His ideological successor, jean monnet, did lurch to the right, but as i recall S’ remained a communist, just willing to tolerate the co-existence of capitalism to avert a nuclear conflict. World Federalism was a peace initiative, one which I still support.
Certainly I did not say that we don’t need one another. On the contrary I am totally in favour of intercultural relations. But if you really believe that EU is about solidarity then I somehow disagree. EU is made for the capital only despite that it contains some democratic elements. (Personally I don’t call this system of western capitalism democracy. For me it is a liberal oligarchy)
I support direct democracy and a border-less world, but in order this to be implement – or to sound more realistic, to improve our international relationships – we need to get rid of many things that keep us apart. We must be focused on our cultural and historical differences. F.e Germans don’t like Italians, Dutch and English don’t like Greeks, Greeks don’t like Turkish and Macedonians; for a German, the way a Greek lives is appalling and vice versa. What about also the historical conflicts between Austria and Italy, or between Greeks and Turkish or between Irish and British? I am Greek and my best friends were always from Turkey and Germany, but that does not mean the rest of the world is ready to accept international friendship (at least the results from the latest elections can confirm that; see the rise of the far right all across Europe). So the only thing we have to do is to be focused on finding the golden mean, some common ways of approaching and understanding one another and finish once for all with the nationalist vitriol. Direct democracy (participatory democracy otherwise) brings people together. Our multicultural societies can become intercultural and this could have international impact (or reflection). I would suggest you to read one of my articles here
http://eagainst.com/articles/the-society-of-intercultural-relations/
A further look on the works of Cornelius Castoriadis (particularly), Hannah Arendt, Pierre Clastres would be suggestible also.
“And let us not forget that the EU means no more war in Europe.” I don’t believe that EU is the main reason the Europe has kept in peace. What brought people together (up to a degree) was the mass reaction of all the brutality and hatred of the period between 1910-1950, the role of the labour movement is also crucial along with other social struggles (minorities and migrants rights) that increased solidarity among the European (and not only) nation states. So if EU contains some democratic elements, this is not because of capitalism or, generally, the idea of forming a union from above. It is because of all these movements that resulted to a further democratisation of our society. These movements contain elements of democracy. (from the French Revolution, the Enlightment and so on…) but mostly they reflect the idea of the ancient Greek polis (not to be confused with the household relationships).
Sorry for this long comment but I could talk a lot about that…
Peace…
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that the differences between the people of Europe should be taken as one of the main problem of Europe. Yes, Europe will always be heterogeneous. But actually, most people inside each european contry are heterogeneous, and people from the north (or the west, or the south-east…) will blame people from another part of the country for their lazyness, or their stinginess, or… And it will be more or less visible depending on the period. Take Belgium at present. Or Germany around the time of the wall fall. Or France (I’m french and it seems to me that northerners have always said that southerners are working less). Nonetheless, they manage to make it work most of the time, as a country. Even though some of them have had a not-so-long history as a united strong country. There are always people saying that they would manage better solo (many independentist groups throughout Europe), and there are always people saying just the contrary. They have good arguments on both sides, but you can’t blame the heterogeneity of people in Europe for its failures. I have almost no background in history and even though I try to, I still don’t understand much of economics (explaining my poor arguments and no reference to great thinkers of the past and the present), but it seems to me this issue is the tree hiding the forest.
Jerome, if you don’t mind a little comradely criticism: You might rename the space Reflections on Liberalism. How you square the above reforms, particularly 18-22, with revolution or libertarian socialism is beyond me. You haven’t gone revisionist on us, have you?
And I don’t understand number 64.
Dave, I appreciate your concern, but allow me a comradely retort:
If you wish to insert yourself into a broad-left social movement that is actually capable of mustering a critical mass of support and acquiring the popular legitimacy to push through a radical transformation of society, you unfortunately can’t be dogmatic or obstinate about your goals. If anything, the ‘revolution’ is a continuous transformative process, not an event, that comes in a series of waves. Sometimes, but not always, it makes sense to make strategic alliances with those whose views may not exactly mirror what we believe in, if this allows us to amplify our voices in a subversive kind of way.
As is clearly described above, this list was drawn up by a multitude of researchers coming from a wide variety of cultural and ideological backgrounds, but sharing the basic agreement that something is profoundly wrong and that a strong statement needs to be made to those in power that things simply cannot continue indefinitely the way they are. You may worry about revisionism as you wish, and I actually encourage the occasional “purity check”, but meanwhile our direct action shook Italy, Van Rompuy, and the Institute more than any self-regarding seclusionary skepticism or aloof quasi-puritan vanguardism ever could (I’m not accusing you of these things, I’m just contrasting them to the other end of the ‘pragmatic’ extreme).
If the 95 theses had just said “overthrow capitalism” no one would have taken us seriously. But the 95 theses, revolutionary or not, actually changed the conversation about the event — everyone was discussing them afterwards. That, ultimately, was the goal of our intervention: to change the conversation and draw attention back to the issues we consider to be of importance. It was a discursive intervention more than anything, and in that respect I didn’t really care whether I agreed or not with all the 95 theses. What mattered was the collaborative process through which the document came about and the subversive way in which it was presented to the figurehead of unaccountable technocratic Europe.
Also, more broadly speaking, I think it is of the utmost essence to realize that a movement does not need to rely on an evangelical commitment to previous theoretical scripture in order to be able to effect revolutionary change in society. In this respect, it’s quite funny to be accused of being too ‘liberal’ by an anarchist, for the anarchists have traditionally been accused of the exact same thing by the communists. In the end, it’s all a bunch of useless finger-pointing and egoic cockfighting over whose ideas are purest and most revolutionary. I don’t like to participate in these elitist-activist games. “My revolution is bigger than yours,” doesn’t really cut it for me.
I believe in people’s ability to self-organize, to run their own communities, schools and workplaces. I also believe in a radical form of equality where no human being should be allowed to rule over another — and I believe popular assemblies and direct participatory democracy are the way to institutionalize that ideal within society. Definition-wise, this puts me closest to the libertarian socialists. If you want to challenge that idea, please feel very free to do so on the pages of this blog or on your own blog. I greatly appreciate the concern. I just don’t share it
That said, I want to stress again that these are not MY ninety-five theses. For my personal opinion and ideas I refer to the 380+ articles I have written on this blog in the past year or so. I don’t think you would still be reading those pages if you were truly sick of my liberal reformist ideas by now.
P.S. #64 is a word play on Europe’s volte-face on Turkish entry into the EU. From Wikipedia:
“Cold turkey” describes the actions of a person who abruptly gives up a habit or addiction rather than gradually easing the process through gradual reduction.
It refers to the EU’s rapid expansionary drive suddenly stopping at the Strait of the Bosporus (mostly for xenophobic/nationalist reasons). Hence, the EU has gone cold turkey.
“If you wish to insert yourself into a broad-left social movement that is actually capable of mustering a critical mass of support and acquiring the popular legitimacy to push through a radical transformation of society, you unfortunately can’t be dogmatic or obstinate about your goals. If anything, the ‘revolution’ is a continuous transformative process, not an event, that comes in a series of waves. Sometimes, but not always, it makes sense to make strategic alliances with those whose views may not exactly mirror what we believe in, if this allows us to amplify our voices in a subversive kind of way.”
As you know this has been the subject of much rancorous debate on the left since the rise of fascism. I’m sure you are wel familiar with the ‘popular’ front v. ‘united’ v. no front at all controversy. i could write a good deal about this but this isn’t the venue [space concerns, I mean], but to nutshell: There have been instances when the implementation of your argument proved useful and times when it was an absolute disaster. As things are constantly in flux, whether you are right re these 95 is guesswork. what i am certain about is that I believe these are woefully deficient, a ruse, a chimera, a carrot plced invitingly before the uninitiated. Worse still, if enacted wholly or in part, it might diffuse the revolutionary spirit we both view as vital. Moreover, this revolutionary movement should not only inspuire but enlighten, suggesting that these 95 limp-wristed reforms are going to make capitalism tolerable is in my view a deception, and hence counterrevolutionary.
So my view is capitalism has to go, hence tactics should match.
“As is clearly described above, this list was drawn up by a multitude of researchers coming from a wide variety of cultural and ideological backgrounds, but sharing the basic agreement that something is profoundly wrong and that a strong statement needs to be made to those in power that things simply cannot continue indefinitely the way they are…”
My objection is that we are still upholding the state when we petition it for redress of grievances. It has to go, not be changed, brought to heel, or even favorably transformed. it has to go, and democracy take its place.
“If the 95 theses had just said “overthrow capitalism” no one would have taken us seriously..”
Then THAT is the task, not reform.
“Also, more broadly speaking, I think it is of the utmost essence to realize that a movement does not need to rely on an evangelical commitment to previous theoretical scripture in order to be able to effect revolutionary change in society. In this respect, it’s quite funny to be accused of being too ‘liberal’ by an anarchist, for the anarchists have traditionally been accused of the exact same thing by the communists. In the end, it’s all a bunch of useless finger-pointing and egoic cockfighting …”
Now this was puzzling. Is it dogmatic to oppose capitalism? Its elimination is my goal. As such, a one percent tax on fuinancial trades on precious commodities is entirely inimical to my objective. We are now entering the Orwellian end of the theoretical debate when we say that we should advocate for that which is antithetical to our mission. Speculation on foodstuffs and other essentials is one of the most vicious passtimes of finance capital, it’s an abomination. People starve every year because of the unchecked price speculation. If it makes me ‘scriptural” then so be it. Anybody supporting this despicable, inhuman practice ought to be ashamed of themselves. It’s like being an abolitionist who owns slaves.
And it’s not often we anarchists get accused of being dogmatic, that’s a first as far as I know.
Evangelical?!?
“I believe in people’s ability to self-organize, to run their own communities, schools and workplaces. I also believe in a radical form of equality where no human being should be allowed to rule over another — and I believe popular assemblies and direct participatory democracy are the way to institutionalize that ideal within society. Definition-wise, this puts me closest to the libertarian socialists. If you want to challenge that idea…”
I’m not sure why you would think that I would challenge that characterization. I merely pointed out that you abandon it when you endorse capitalism as you did when you endorsed the 95. People running their own workplaces is precisely what capitalism isn’t. Private control of the workplace is the sina qua non of capitalism. Supporting a tax on the speculation of the product of the workplace is entirely incompatible with your definition of libertarian socialism.
I did not say I was ‘sick’ of your liberalism, I introduced what I believed would be a comradely debate over strategy, and characterized it that way. Apparently it wasn’t received that way.
And you will forgive me, I trust, if I haven’t read every one of your essays.
Lastly, re my blogs: saveourcola.blogspot.com started as forum for my co-workers and I to discuss the latest ‘austerity measures’ introduced into our latest contract negotiations. It evolved from there largely along the lines of the feedback I received. It isn’t necessarily for those who are well-red, -informed about radical history/class theory etc., altho inevitably some of that
creeps in. But it is not a space for theoretical argument or planning.
Revolutionology.blogspot.com is. It’s still under construction [so to speak] as I have been busy with OccupySeattle and other activities. But you are welcome to visit and see if there is a way to unite the left, and advance the cause. At the moment though there are only three people [plus however many read this] that know of its existence. So please fell free to advance your gradualist ideas there, as I said before, there have been times in the past when they have worked.
End ECB, IMF, FED, World Bank and European bank for Reconstruction and Development. All other requests are irrelevant like hamsters in wheels if those private banks in private families still exist, because eye of authority of pyramid is still above all questions and issues. But first educate yourself that those banks are private and that 99,9999999 percents use privately printed money of private 0.00000001 percents of people.
Well said!
{ 7 trackbacks }