Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Another general strike in Greece

Greece is again paralyzed today: it seems that no transport is operative, while public services are totally stopped or with minimal services.

The strike is oriented to demand that the crisis is paid by the plutocracy and not the people, as has been cried once and again in the streets of Athens and other Greek cities.

It also aims to prevent the sell off of public companies and services, aimed at getting money and reduce debt but that will also deprive the state from some sources of income as well as of the legitimacy that only public services can give. 

What's an state that does nothing for the people and only keeps police and army in exchange for taxes and obedience to its laws? Short answer: an extortion mafia. 

Source: Gara[es].

19 comments:

  1. "What's an state that does nothing for the people"

    All Greeks recieved benefits such as cheap money which they did not earn and were being paid for by other countries in the EU. They had a good run but now it's over.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LIES!!!

    There is nearly no welfare in Greece (or Spain or Portugal). You are parroting EU-Nazi propaganda without even knowing what you are talking about. The debt of Greece went (and still goes) to pay for the tax evasion of the rich.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hypocrites!

    You leftists claim to be non-nationalists and even anti-nationalists, but actually you are the biggest nationalists. If the government of the world is left to you, the world will end up having thousands of tiny countries constantly making war with each other (the inevitable consequence of "self rule" and giving too much power to individual states). Isn't it much better to have a world consisting of much less countries than we currently have? Without the EU, European, and following Europe, the whole world's rivers would run red. The EU took some of the power and independence from its member states in return for welfare and peace for its citizens. It is far from perfect, but more or less it works, and the EU region is one of the most prosperous regions of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the EU region is one of the most prosperous regions of the world

    and one of the most peaceful

    ReplyDelete
  6. WTF! There's no such thing as a "world government"...

    Besides, nobody is asking the EU to dissolve... but to be solidarious and social: to nationalize banks instead of let the banks privatize the states and EU itself. To be the Union of the Peoples and not the Union of the Banksters against the Peoples, as it is now.

    Who is the hypocrite, I wonder.

    "The EU took some of the power and independence from its member states in return for welfare and peace for its citizens".

    The EU provides no welfare. It provides cohesion funds (not going directly to the people at all) and farming subsidies (same thing): they are aids for administrations and, specially, business. Not that I am against but that is not welfare.

    Welfare in EU is provided by the member states and varies radically from one state to the next. In North and East Europe welfare is relatively consolidated, in Britain, Ireland and South Europe welfare does not exist (almost).

    Notices that it's precisely the areas of low welfare which are the ones getting the big hit. Why? Because the high cost of life derived from lack of welfare (notably lack of public housing and related high real state speculation) causes salaries to be rigid: you can't work for less than it takes to pay the rent (or mortgage) and the rent is very high.

    You may want (say) Spanish workers to work for less than 1000 euros/month (almost half the base salary in Gemany) but then they'd have to live in slums. And slums are illegal an nobody will hire people living in slums anyhow: you want them clean, rested and presentable, not stinking.

    That's how welfare (which I generally support, mind you) acts as subsidy for the workforce: it provides education for little or nothing, housing for little or nothing, health care for little or nothing, emergency (unemployment, etc.) assistance by default, etc. That's a happy working force ready to work for less and to spend most their salaries in pointless consumerism of the worst kind: useless clothes, cars, video consoles, fancy foods and stuff, vacation packages, etc.

    That's a happy motivated and qualified workforce that keeps the economy running (as the capitalist economy needs consumption: active markets).

    ReplyDelete
  7. WTF! There's no such thing as a "world government"...

    Who said there is? I used the phrase "government of the world" figuratively and to denote the general political and economical system of the world. For example, today we live in a capitalist world system, but if leftists were powerful enough we would live in another kind of world system (e.g., communist or socialist).

    Besides, nobody is asking the EU to dissolve.

    You may not be, but there are many leftists in the EU and elsewhere working to destroy international organizations and unions like the EU, deeming them as the enemies of their leftist cause. Also many leftists advocate "self rule" (the principle that every ethnic group should have its own independent country and state, resulting in a proliferation of countries, however tiny). My criticism was specifically against such groups of leftists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are very wrong: leftists are generally Europeist, what we don't like and can't support is THIS EUROPE, where the joint government is not just undemocratic but also works all the time for the big business and against the people.

    We need a different, much redder Europe.

    Nationalist forces in the anti-internationalist and anti-European sense you mean are typically right wing. And beware because they are growing: they are growing in Britain, they are growing in the Netherlands, they are growing in Eastern Europe, they are growing in the Baltic...

    Curiously they are not growing, at least not so much, in Southern Europe nor Ireland, possibly because the left has deep roots and wide presence in all these states (except Spain?)

    Essentially I have the impression that the bourgeoisie, which is still the powerful leading class in Europe, is trying not just to break EU but also to establish fascism in its fragments: it's a self-defeating strategy in all senses.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Especially your last paragraph sounds very nonsensical. Why would the EU bourgeoisie try to destroy the EU? Isn't that the same thing as shooting its own foot? What profit would it gain from such a foolish (for itself) thing?

    ReplyDelete
  10. First, there is not yet (maybe never) an EU bourgeoisie. There are national bourgeoisies and international (globalist) bourgeoisies (or an international aspect of the national ones or however you want to see it - but there is no EU one with its own personality). So they would both serve their nationalist and international identities by dismantling EU.

    However they may serve badly their objective interests, so there is indeed a clash between the pro-EU pragmatics and the anti-EU emos, who'd like their "nation-states" directly under the White House (as true sovereignty is utopic and anyhow bourgeoises are globalists and imperialists deep inside).

    Second, it's not MY nonsense: it's THEIRS. Currently Capitalism lacks a plan, any coherent plan other than redistributing from bottom up by any means necessary (typically using the state/EU: bailouts, subsidies, increased exploitation, privatization of public property, etc.)

    I know what I would like to do: establish a Socialist Federation with a Swiss type of government (more or less) and Cuban (pre-Raúl) type of economy (more or less): hard-core democracy at European level.

    But it's not in my hands, sadly enough.

    ReplyDelete
  11. First, there is not yet (maybe never) an EU bourgeoisie.

    I used the phrase "EU bourgeoisie" to mean any bourgeoisie within the borders of the EU, not in the specific sense you mean.

    So they would both serve their nationalist and international identities by dismantling EU.

    The EU is not an obstacle they would want to remove; on the contrary, it greatly facilitates their dealings and increases their income by providing an almost continent-wide peaceful and concordant multinational free trade zone.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also there are extra-EU free trade agreements of the EU:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

    ReplyDelete
  13. BTW, my brother works in a shipping company that deals with the trade between Turkey and continental EU countries, so I know well how free trade facilitates both international and national business in those countries. It is something that is indispensable. The EU itself provides even a higher version of free trade for the EU countries.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Note: Blogger's latest mess has got some comments here removed. They are not in the spam list nor I have removed them.

    Thanks to Onur for noticing.

    If they do not show up for tomorrow, I'll see to re-post them from the email record with appropriate attribution. I may be discussing harshly at times here but I'm censoring nobody.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A whole conversation was lost (blame Blogger). I think it was as follow:

    Me:

    WTF! There's no such thing as a "world government"...

    Besides, nobody is asking the EU to dissolve... but to be solidarious and social: to nationalize banks instead of let the banks privatize the states and EU itself. To be the Union of the Peoples and not the Union of the Banksters against the Peoples, as it is now.

    Who is the hypocrite, I wonder.

    "The EU took some of the power and independence from its member states in return for welfare and peace for its citizens".

    The EU provides no welfare. It provides cohesion funds (not going directly to the people at all) and farming subsidies (same thing): they are aids for administrations and, specially, business. Not that I am against but that is not welfare.

    Welfare in EU is provided by the member states and varies radically from one state to the next. In North and East Europe welfare is relatively consolidated, in Britain, Ireland and South Europe welfare does not exist (almost).

    Notices that it's precisely the areas of low welfare which are the ones getting the big hit. Why? Because the high cost of life derived from lack of welfare (notably lack of public housing and related high real state speculation) causes salaries to be rigid: you can't work for less than it takes to pay the rent (or mortgage) and the rent is very high.

    You may want (say) Spanish workers to work for less than 1000 euros/month (almost half the base salary in Gemany) but then they'd have to live in slums. And slums are illegal an nobody will hire people living in slums anyhow: you want them clean, rested and presentable, not stinking.

    That's how welfare (which I generally support, mind you) acts as subsidy for the workforce: it provides education for little or nothing, housing for little or nothing, health care for little or nothing, emergency (unemployment, etc.) assistance by default, etc. That's a happy working force ready to work for less and to spend most their salaries in pointless consumerism of the worst kind: useless clothes, cars, video consoles, fancy foods and stuff, vacation packages, etc.

    That's a happy motivated and qualified workforce that keeps the economy running (as the capitalist economy needs consumption: active markets).

    Onur:

    "WTF! There's no such thing as a "world government"..."

    Who said there is? I used the phrase "government of the world" figuratively and to denote the general political and economical system of the world. For example, today we live in a capitalist world system, but if leftists were powerful enough we would live in another kind of world system (e.g., communist or socialist).

    "Besides, nobody is asking the EU to dissolve."

    You may not be, but there are many leftists in the EU and elsewhere working to destroy international organizations and unions like the EU, deeming them as the enemies of their leftist cause. Also many leftists advocate "self rule" (the principle that every ethnic group should have its own independent country and state, resulting in a proliferation of countries, however tiny). My criticism was specifically against such groups of leftists.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Me:

    You are very wrong: leftists are generally Europeist, what we don't like and can't support is THIS EUROPE, where the joint government is not just undemocratic but also works all the time for the big business and against the people.

    We need a different, much redder Europe.

    Nationalist forces in the anti-internationalist and anti-European sense you mean are typically right wing. And beware because they are growing: they are growing in Britain, they are growing in the Netherlands, they are growing in Eastern Europe, they are growing in the Baltic...

    Curiously they are not growing, at least not so much, in Southern Europe nor Ireland, possibly because the left has deep roots and wide presence in all these states (except Spain?)

    Essentially I have the impression that the bourgeoisie, which is still the powerful leading class in Europe, is trying not just to break EU but also to establish fascism in its fragments: it's a self-defeating strategy in all senses.

    Onur:

    Especially your last paragraph sounds very nonsensical. Why would the EU bourgeoisie try to destroy the EU? Isn't that the same thing as shooting its own foot? What profit would it gain from such a foolish (for itself) thing?

    Me:

    First, there is not yet (maybe never) an EU bourgeoisie. There are national bourgeoisies and international (globalist) bourgeoisies (or an international aspect of the national ones or however you want to see it - but there is no EU one with its own personality). So they would both serve their nationalist and international identities by dismantling EU.

    However they may serve badly their objective interests, so there is indeed a clash between the pro-EU pragmatics and the anti-EU emos, who'd like their "nation-states" directly under the White House (as true sovereignty is utopic and anyhow bourgeoises are globalists and imperialists deep inside).

    Second, it's not MY nonsense: it's THEIRS. Currently Capitalism lacks a plan, any coherent plan other than redistributing from bottom up by any means necessary (typically using the state/EU: bailouts, subsidies, increased exploitation, privatization of public property, etc.)

    I know what I would like to do: establish a Socialist Federation with a Swiss type of government (more or less) and Cuban (pre-Raúl) type of economy (more or less): hard-core democracy at European level.

    But it's not in my hands, sadly enough.

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Onur:

    "First, there is not yet (maybe never) an EU bourgeoisie."

    I used the phrase "EU bourgeoisie" to mean any bourgeoisie within the borders of the EU, not in the specific sense you mean.

    "So they would both serve their nationalist and international identities by dismantling EU."

    The EU is not an obstacle they would want to remove; on the contrary, it greatly facilitates their dealings and increases their income by providing an almost continent-wide peaceful and concordant multinational free trade zone.

    Also there are extra-EU free trade agreements of the EU:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements

    BTW, my brother works in a shipping company that deals with the trade between Turkey and continental EU countries, so I know well how free trade facilitates both international and national business in those countries. It is something that is indispensable. The EU itself provides even a higher version of free trade for the EU countries.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If there's still any comment missing, I do not have got notification. :/

    ReplyDelete
  19. They look complete now. Thanks for the restoration of my capitalist kingdom. :)

    ReplyDelete

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Comment moderation before publishing is... ON