Watch Brent Corrigan For Free Online

Juliet!

Dear participants in the two days of Alternative,
for those arriving on Friday, see you in the evening to talk to
Juliet Pandora TV.

The appointment is Friday 29 October at 20.45 in Genoa, at the civic center
Remigio Zena, in The Ascent of Prion 26 Procedure 1.
(The ascent of the Prion is the steep road that leaves from Piazza delle Erbe and goes to Port
Soprana - Piazza Dante).

Infrared Range Of Tv Remote Led

article to read absolutely Yes

THE COLLAPSE OF SOCIAL SECURITY: THE FRENCH WORKERS FACING THE PROGRAM neoliberal policies

"Working more to earn less" Rage in the cage French EU

OF DIANA JOHNSTONE
globalresearch . ca

The French are again on strike, are blocking the transport, unleash hell on the streets and everything just because the government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 years. They must be crazy.

This, I suppose, is the way it is seen that the mass movement under way in France, or at least has shown, much of the world, and especially in Anglo-Saxon world. Perhaps the first thing that needs to be said about the mass strikes is that they are not really about "raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 years." This is a bit like describing the capitalist free market as a sort of lemonade stand. Simplification propaganda on very complex issues. Allows commenters to break through an open door. After all, they wisely observed, people in other countries are working up to 65 or more years, so why discourage the French at 62? The population is aging, and if the retirement age is not made up, the pension system will be ruined in the payment of pensions to so many elderly. However, the current protest movement is not about "raising the retirement age from 60 to 62 years." It is much more. First, this movement is an expression of exasperation with the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, who clearly favors the super-rich than the Most people who live in this country. E 'was elected with the slogan "Work more to earn more," and the reality has turned into work harder to earn less. The Minister of Labour, which introduced the reform, Eric Woerth, got a job for his wife in the office of staff of France's richest woman, Liliane Bettencourt, heir to the cosmetics giant L'Oreal, when, as Budget Minister, was flying on his massive tax evasion. While the tax benefits to help drain the public coffers of the rich, this government is doing everything possible to bring down the entire social security system that emerged after the Second World War, under the pretext that "we can not afford it." The issue of retirement is much more complex "retirement age". The statutory retirement age means the age at which you can retire. But the pension depends on the number of years of work, or to be more precise, the number of contributions (payments) in the pension scheme. For the sake of "saving the system from bankruptcy, the government is gradually raising the number of years of contributions from 40 to 43 years, with indications that these will increase further in the future. So while education continues and jobs will start later, for a full pension most people will have to work until 65 or 67 years. A full board would be approximately 40% of wages at retirement. But even so, this may not be possible. The full-time jobs are harder and harder to obtain, and employers do not necessarily want to retain older employees. Or the company goes out of business and an employee of 58 years finds himself permanently out of work. It is becoming increasingly difficult to work full time in the paid workforce of more than 40 years, however much we decide to want it. So, in practice, Sarkozy, Woerth reform simply means the reduction of pensions. That, in fact, is what the European Union has recommended that all its member states, such as economic measure designed, like most of the current reforms to reduce the social costs in the name of "competitiveness", which means competition to attract investment capital. The low-skilled workers, which, instead of continuing his studies, entered the world of work by young, say eighteen years of age, join a scheme for 42 years until age 60 if they really succeed in being used for all this time. Statistics show that their expectation life is relatively short, therefore they need to abandon the first to enjoy any retirement. The French system is based on solidarity between generations, as workers' contributions to today go to pay the pensions of today. The government has subtly tried to put one generation against another, claiming that it is necessary to safeguard the future of young people today, they are paying for retirement "baby boom". E 'therefore highly significant that this week's high school and college students have begun to enter the massive strikes in protest movement. This generational solidarity is a blow to the government.
Young people are also more radical than are the older trade unionists. I am very aware of the growing difficulties in building a career. The tendency for qualified personnel is to enter the world of work later and later, after years of receiving an education. With the difficulty of finding a stable job full-time, many are dependent on their parents until the age of 30 years. It 's the simple arithmetic shows that, in this case, there will be no full board up to more than 70 years.

Productivity and deindustrialization

As has become standard practice, the authors of the reforms the neo-liberals do not have a choice but a necessity. There is no alternative. We must compete on the global market. We must do this or we will go to ruin. And this reform was primarily driven by the European Union, in a 2003 report which concluded that, as people worked longer, it was necessary to cut pension costs. These dictates prevent any discussion of two key factors driving the pension problem: productivity and industrialization. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, that the former Socialist Party that leads the relatively new Left Party, is virtually the only leader to point out that, although there are fewer workers contributing to pension schemes, the difference may be the growth of productivity. In fact, the productivity of French workers is among the highest in the world (higher than Germany, for example). Moreover, even if France has the second highest life expectancy in Europe, also has the highest birth rate. And even if employees are less, because of unemployment, the wealth they produce should be sufficient to maintain their levels of pension. Ah, but here's the catch: for decades, while productivity was rising, wages stagnant. The profit increase productivity was hijacked in the financial sector. The bubble in the financial sector and the stagnation of purchasing power have led to the financial crisis and the government has preserved the imbalance through the rescue of the dissolute financiers.
So, logically, the maintenance of the pension system basically requires the increase in wages to take account of increased productivity, a very important policy change. But there is another crucial problem related to the issue of pensions: the de-industrialization. In order to maintain high profits drained from the financial sector, and avoid paying higher wages, an industry after another has moved its production in countries with low labor costs. Profitable enterprises closed, while the funds were in search of profits even higher. And 'this merely the inevitable result of the birth of new industry trends in Asia? And 'This is an inevitable lowering of standards of living in the West due to its origin in the East? Maybe. However, if you move production to China, you end up lowering the purchasing power in the West, and then Chinese exports will suffer. China is taking the first steps towards strengthening the internal market porprio. The "growth led by exports" can not be a strategy for everyone. Prosperity world really depends on strengthening both the domestic production of domestic markets. But this requires some sort of deliberate industrial policy has been banned by the bureaucrats of globalization: the World Trade Organization and the European Union. They work with the tenets of "comparative advantage" and "free competition". For the sake of free markets, China is actually faced with sanctions for the promotion of its solar energy industry, vitally needed to put an end to air pollution that afflicts this country. The world economy is treated as a big game, where you follow the "rules of the free market" is more important to the environment or the basic needs of human beings. Only the financiers can win this game. And if they lose, well, they get even more firm by the governments subservient to another game.

Impasse?

Where will it all end?
You should end up in something like a democratic revolution: a comprehensive review of economic policy. But there are many solid reasons why this will not happen. First, there is no political leadership in France is ready and able to bring a truly radical movement. Mélenchon is what comes closest, but his party is new and its base is still narrow. The radical left is paralyzed by his chronic sectarianism. And there is great confusion among the people in revolt without clear plans and leaders. The labor leaders are fully aware that employees are losing a day's wage for each day that go on strike and, in fact, are always eager to find a way to end the strike. Only students do not suffer from this situation. Trade unionists and Socialist Party leaders do not ask for anything more drastic than that of opening negotiations on the details of the reform. If Sarkozy were not so stubborn, this is a concession that the government could do and could restore calm without changing much. It would take a miraculous birth new leaders to bring the movement forward. But even if that happens, there is a formidable obstacle to a fundamental change: the European Union. The EU was built on the dreams of a peaceful and prosperous united Europe, has become a mechanism for social and economic control of the capital and, in particular, the financial capital. It is also linked to a powerful military alliance, NATO. If left to itself, France would experience in the economic system more just and socially. But the EU is there to prevent just such experiments.

Anglo-Saxon Attitudes

On 19 October, the international television channel France 24 sent a discussion of non-French strikes between 4 observers. The Portuguese woman and Indian man seemed they were trying, with some success, to understand what was happening. On the contrary, both Anglo-American (the Paris correspondent of Time magazine and Stephen Clarke, author of 1000 Years of Annoying the French) you enjoyed the show 's self-complacent inability to understand the country they write for a living. Their simple and quick explanation: "The French are always on strike because they like it."
A little later in the program the presenter showed a short interview with a high school student who provided comments on the serious issue of pensions. Perhaps it would reflect the Anglo-Saxons? The response was instantaneous: "How sad to see a 18 year old to think about pensions when they should think about the girls!" So, whether you do it for fun, or whether they do so instead of fun, to the Anglo-Americans, used to tell the world what they should do, the French are ridiculous.

Original version:

Diana Johnstone
Source: http://globalresearch.ca

Do Aussie Men Wear Jockstraps

Murta, No gutter!

The only thing you can be sure at this moment is that the garrison
not yield.
The question of the gutter is becoming an issue the of Genoa. That's because the tight knot that keeps the crucial issues of our time, such as the management of public resources, the formation of democracy in decisions that affect everyone, land conservation, the development model that Italy must follow.
In this field our opponents main rivals are the right-wing forces together with those on the left, which, in the eaves, as on all the things that really matter, have reached an agreement. Alternative
If he could be these fights, even with the direct involvement of those who run them, there would be no need lucubrate too much on the shape of our movement or program: 'd already become a force able to affect national balances.

ps Last night, on Primocanale, Raffaellea Della Bianca, the PDL has advocated the costitursi "committees for the" yes "and expressed hope that" the silent majorities in favor of the project will soon make you feel. "
is an invitation to pick up. We go to the comparison, let's see who prevails. One reason to support the gutter there are silent majorities, but minorities annoying.

Rogue Status Drum Wrap

An article recommended by Marino Badiale / 2

The "commons" between reality and utopia

Luigi Cavallaro * - October 11, 2010

must be grateful to Toni Negri and Michael Hardt for taking their last substantial effort to the theme of "common" [1] . Recently, in fact, we have witnessed the establishment of a substantial intellectual and popular resistance front around the defense of certain 'public goods', such as water or the environment, which has tried to put up a barrier to the fury rages in privatized industrialized societies for over three decades. It is a very composite face political culture of belonging, but it is recognized in the belief that the "common good" would constitute a tertium genus able to circumvent the opposition considered outdated between 'public' and 'private'. It is therefore welcome any attempt to give these claims adequate theoretical system: test its plausibility is the only way to verify the reasons (or possibly completely wrong) to argue that the opposition between public and private is what today prevent the development of a truly cooperative and shared water management, knowledge, health, energy and cultural heritage.

We see then in detail. The term "common", Hardt and Negri mean, first, "the common wealth of the material world - air, water, fruit land and all the gifts of nature - that in the classical texts of political thought in the Western world is often characterized as the heritage of all mankind to share together. " In this sense, we read from the first pages of the ponderous volume, "the language, the emotions and human expressions are most common." But there is another meaning that Hardt and Negri attribute to the "common", "A" common "- in fact, they say - is to be understood, more precisely, all that is derived from social production."

is worth pointing out that the equivalent postulated between these two meanings lies the real novelty of the reflection of Hardt and Negri. Traditionally, in fact, with the first meaning of the term "common" goods that are designated as the lawyers call "free": not only because they do not belong to anyone, but especially because they are not - to their essence or statutory restrictions - which may appropriation. The air we breathe or the language that allows us to communicate are the most classic examples.

Different speech, however, true for goods (and of course the service) products. Each production presupposes a working process and the latter - in the words of Marx - not necessarily imply 'ownership of natural elements for human needs " [2] , which in turn implies a prior distribution of the means of production according to figures the social relations and the subsumption of individuals working within specific relations of production , that concern is agents of production that the material means necessary to it. And if it is true that every work process uses standard goods that strictly speaking are not susceptible of appropriation (such as air or the language, in fact), is no less true that a profound difference between the remaining ones and the others means assets that are common in the "free" are not in fact be produced through work, so that even those transformations that they undergo in dependence of the human frame in their "natural history"; goods producible by labor are appropriated by specific relations of production and can be "common" if only one being the social form the latter makes them 'not rivals' and 'non exclusive', ie such that their enjoyment by Tom does not prevent a similar enjoyment by Caio.

Evoking Marx intended to suggest that the distinction we have just mentioned has a long tradition and solid theoretical reasons: its primary objective is to escape those idealistic conceptions of social work inspire not only the humanistic illusions of those who see the work as "pure creative activity," but also the modern treatment of the neoclassical economists about the supposed public goods "by nature" (which, well understood, serve to say that everything what is not "naturally the public" should not even be) [3] . But if this is true, the semantic equivalence postulated by Hardt and Negri between the two meanings of 'common' can not be taken in descriptive terms: an analysis should rather legislation, namely, that proves that, even if it was so far, so it should not be.

vain, however, the reader searches in over four hundred pages of the book. Far from explaining the extent to which new relations of production should conceive of the allocation of the labor process and its products in order to move us "beyond the private and the public," Hardt and Negri confine themselves to tell us that the 'biopolitical' process work was the "common" not only as a productive force, but also as a 'form in which wealth is produced' place 'work is increasingly biopolitical self "from the state capital, there would only need to fight in defense of "freedom of the labor force biopolitics" (Make a "guaranteed minimum income at a national or global) and to ensure the world's peoples 'physical infrastructure' which they lack, beginning with a" physical platform (allowing access to wired communication networks in and wireless) "to continue with the" logic (protocols and open source code) "and another" rich in content (the works and scientific research, intellectual and cultural). "

case, however, this amounts to assume what we need instead to prove. The 'autonomy' in fact relates to mode of work and for itself can not tell us anything about the form that takes its product. The very considerable autonomy enjoyed by every manager of an undertaking, for example, does not prevent qualify the product of his labor as a commodity , as well as the autonomy enjoyed by a public official does not preclude recognition of the difference is ch 'is the product of his own activities. The same goes for the character 'commune', ie social, labor process, which is no coincidence that Marx recognized as a typical capitalist industry and we may well report also to the employment by the public sector. After all, if Marx himself spoke a 'capitalist communism' in relation to the process that leads to the partition of the mass of surplus value and the genesis of the average profit [4] , could we not evoke a similar "community of official authority" to refer to the way in which these actually have made it possible to make certain goods and services do not exclude, not rivals? What else should we report what Hardt and Negri call "the town that serves as the basis of biopolitical production 'and who denounce be acquisitive strategies of capitalism? The "dismantling of the institutions of public education," the "privatization of primary education and the drastic reduction of funding for secondary school "may not refer to the destruction of that form of Communism that we have experienced from the economic activities of public authorities?

We do not believe to be wrong if we say that assimilation is typically between capitalism and socialism sessantottino face veil here (and it is a film very often) to the discussion of Hardt and Negri. Claiming that "the" real socialism "was an extraordinary machine of capitalist accumulation," which allegedly used the "tools of Keynesian capitalist powers that had been adopted only in times of cyclical crises," means not only ignore the fact that it was Keynes to be guided in the preparation of the USSR General Theory (and not to copy the Bolsheviks) [5] , but also completely misunderstand the meaning of the 'Keynesian revolution' which just moves from the conviction that the development of our society has given rise to certain needs (such as' urban planning 'or' the conservation of the natural environment, "to repeat his two examples) such that" it is impossible for the individual, even if it wanted to, take the necessary steps "to satisfy them: indeed, "even though he embarks on those undertakings, would be in no position to reap the benefits." Only "if adopted and used strong central governing authority, may spread enormous benefits the entire community [6].

You can add that attribute to the 'biopolitical labor' ability to generate cooperation in a "self" is likely to make an apology to the head of those who coordinated and continuous Minister Sacconi has taken as an archetype for the rewrite of the Statute workers. It is clear that autonomy can be easily declined MISUSE utopia of a society of "free independent producers", which follows that of the Walrasian vision of the perfect competitive market: is not a coincidence that Aldo Bonomi, who first wrote about the "triumph of the many" [7] has finally arrived to assume the role of EDA small business and self employment on the pink pages of the newspaper of Confindustria .

Conversely, if we take seriously the "reforms" requested by Hardt and Negri, it is easy to conclude that entail the nationalization of much of the productive [8] aim is in fact or bend the existing industrial facilities non-capitalist logic of operation, or to organize production for export in order to obtain the necessary transfers technology from abroad (just the manner of the first Soviet Five-Year Plan).

Needless to say, In either case we would not at all 'over the private and the public, "as claimed by Negri, Hardt and other theorists of' common goods' [9] , but firmly within or the other: the market or the state, to call a spade a spade. In this respect we recall the words of polished PJD Wiles, "those who want to de-Stalinized a particular type of economic activity should let the free market, as the Yugoslavs have discovered, as well as those who despise the laws of supply and demand must Stalinized sectors who wish to reform. There is no third way. The economy as a whole can be mixed, but each activity should be the one thing or another. The function of the vast economic Stalinist bureaucracy is to do administratively what the market does this automatically, or the consumer and profit to the producer say what to do (with or without the help of competition between producers) or tell him the central planner. The allocation of resources is made at the periphery or the center, with the market or not. These (four) words show that the dichotomy, command economy or market, is a logically exhaustive " [10] . And if the real radicalism looking rather to recognize that these are still the terms of the alternative?