dragon With the sound of thunder, the sky dragon winding furrows .
- Materials:
wood
mechanisms
embossed carton
- Size: 17x72x17cm
- Year: 2008
Sunday, December 20, 2009
How Do I Know If My Hairs Long Enough To Wax
dragon With the sound of thunder, the sky dragon winding furrows .
Alvarez Ad60scbk Price
the bride is no more! Where did the bride who once lived in the dress?
- Materials: paper and cloth
- Size: size 42
- Year: 2006
Polymyxin B And Sulfa Allergy
aerofilia A breath of fresh air !
- Materials:
paper
video projector
nylon
- Dimensions: variable
- Year: 2009
Japanese Molested Train Public
frameworks sensitive II Operate your senses and play with the mechanisms.
- Materials:
wood
mechanisms
origami paper
- Size: 15x15x15cm single module
- Year of creation: 2005
Which Club Soccer Team Has The Most Trophies
dressed sensitive There are no inanimate objects.
- Materials: fabric, paper, wood, electrical equipment, lens
- Size: size 42
- Year: 2008
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Online Land Surveying Degree
The critique of neoliberalism Noam Chomsky
"global economic crisis", this is one of the most common expressions that filled the front pages of newspapers and television news headlines over the past two years. Why? What happened?
There is a method of analysis that can easily show if the mechanisms detailed in this crisis, at least the general features and intrinsic properties of complex economic policy that appears to have collapsed all of a sudden?
Through the study of criticism of Noam Chomsky's response to contemporary neoliberalism is more plausible that the system was designed for this purpose, the analysis of American linguist, in fact, seems to be a tool that can give us a criterion for designing this framework, thanks to the description of a two-way relationship between politics and economics.
The starting point is, therefore, the critique of neoliberalism, the concept of the economy in recent decades. But what is meant by neo-liberalism?
The theoretical definition of this term is: a economic doctrine that supports the release by the state of the economy, privatization of public services, the liberalization of all non-strategic sector and the end of each Customs seal, in summary, the economic theory of the global market according to the analysis of economists has failed, as explained explicitly, Duccio Cavalieri, a professor of economics at the University of Florence
"In short, the crisis has highlighted the lack in the current capitalist system of effective self-regulating market. In this sense, we can certainly talk about the failure of neoliberalism .. "
But this economic system really works well? It really turns out to be independent of the state policies and based on true self-regulation of the market?
From here begins the study of Chomsky. In his view, in fact, the first step to understanding the economic chain is certainly a political structure in which it moves.
The author begins his discussion of the end of World War II, a real historical node to the current structure of international relations.
He describes to us the years that are defined in political science of the bipolar system, where the United States presented themselves as a global leader in power and wealth, with the hope to maintain that role and expand their economic system in what was called the " Grand Area ", that entire portion of the globe outside the Soviet bloc. How the United States wanted to impose his rule, Chomsky derives from a long memorandum remained secret, the Study of Planning Policy No. 23), written by George Kennan, head of programming of the State Department in 1948 . The summary of it is that, in order to maintain the superiority achieved, the strategies should favor a policy of power, free from sentimentality and ideologies such as the idea that the government was responsible for the welfare of the entire population, or human rights, because the only interest was to defend the U.S., that is, as Chomsky himself points out, the need American economy. He obtained, therefore, from these guidelines, the key for interpreting all the actions of U.S. military after World War II. For each area of \u200b\u200bthe "Grand Area", in fact, was given a role, and if one was inside it he refused to do it, the American intervention would be immediate, as the Vietnam War clearly demonstrated.
This first part of the analysis suggests, therefore, a first pole to put the definition of neoliberalism. If the world stage in these terms is subject to the state's political leaders, in fact, the concept of free market is a first concrete barrier.
analysis of Chomsky does not stop there however, but rather indicates another stage in history is essential to understand the current state of things, typically tied to financial reality. The year is 1971, when a major acceleration towards the contemporary neo-liberalism was caused by the Nixon administration's decision to dismantle the global economic system created by the Bretton Woods (1944), abolishing the convertibility of the dollar. Here's why:
"The Bretton Woods sought to control the flow of capital. After World War II, when the U.S. and Britain have created this system, there was a great desire for democracy. The system had to preserve the ideals of social democrats, essentially the welfare state. To do so requires controlling the movement of capital. If you let them go freely from one country to another, there comes a day when financial institutions are able to determine the policy of the States. Constitute what is called 'virtual parliament': without having a real existence, are able to influence the policy of the states with the threat to withdraw the funds and other financial manipulations. [] So all over the world, there is since a decline of public service, the stagnation or decline in wages, the deterioration of working conditions, increase in working hours. "
a result of these statements, the net result is looming political and economic as well: on the one hand, a unilateral policy imposed by the global leader in the rest of the planet, the other possibility for the flow of capital to move freely within this space. The drawing is not yet complete, but it is important to note at this point, an obvious but worthy of consideration to be explicit: who owns this capital free to move within the system? Obviously the big corporations, particularly American.
But why this free flow of capital, over the years has caused a steady impoverishment of the population, a reduction in wages and the decline of public service?
The explanation can be made through three evaluations.
Consider, first, the free movement of capital: this is the main factor that over the years has resulted in the steady decline in wages and the decline of their purchasing power. This is because the ability to move money without barriers has become one of the most powerful weapons of the firms to deploy against the demands of workers' associations to improve their wages or working conditions in general. The mere possibility that it could threaten to move production at will, or you move it to places where labor costs were much lower, progressively annihilated the demands of the working class, placed in a situation of growing insecurity.
The second question is: where do these huge capital that the power groups, investors, move at will and without asking too many questions? Chomsky responds and shows that the answer is "the State". You can define this as a crucial step in the analysis of his critique of neo-liberalism, because it explains two facts:
A) neoliberalism is pure theory, the real economy is profoundly influenced by the states;
B) multinational industries Americans have always grants or government funding, so while profits are private, the costs and risks imposed on the population.
To explain the first point, Chomsky points out how the two main international advocates of neoliberalism, the U.S. and Britain, particularly since the '80s, in the figures of the then president Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, have always carried protectionist measures in large-scale defense of their domestic markets. By analyzing the budget of the Reagan administration published in the journal "Foreign Affairs", the author claims that "he was the director of the biggest turn toward protectionism never occurred since the thirties. "
In light of these considerations, and according to the analysis of international politics U.S. made earlier, we can say that if we can speak of neoliberalism, it must be defined unilaterally. The U.S. international action opens the way for investment of its large companies, requires the mode of governance and policies to assist them and at the same time, it protects from adverse consequences that the system imposed on them may cause a reflex .
addition to being protected from the outside, however, large corporations are also defended by the policy within their states. Indeed, the protectionist measures guarantee them the market on which products to flow back (besides the one created abroad), enjoy the legislation is that the guarantees often more rights than an individual (for example, consider the Maroni law in Italy) and get the money to be invested by government subsidies, made entirely contrary to the neo-liberal theory.
In this sense, then, Chomsky argues that the profits are private but the costs and risks are public, socialized.
The result of this analysis reveals three key features:
A) the progressive impoverishment of the population of powerful states, since they exert on military costs, loans to corporations and the gradual decline wages;
B) operation of the most underdeveloped areas of the planet, as a reservoir of resources, human and material, both for production and for the creation of new markets;
C) alliance "State-Capitalism" as a weapon defense.
If the picture was and now is, was it not fate that the global crisis, which now hits us, stealing upon our heads? Certainly, as stated by the Knights, this "neoliberalism" has failed. Noam Chomsky has
perhaps right when he says that the understanding of politics and economics is affordable for everyone, whether it unmasks the rhetoric that surrounds them and are told the facts for what they are?
Matteo De Laurentis 
"global economic crisis", this is one of the most common expressions that filled the front pages of newspapers and television news headlines over the past two years. Why? What happened?
There is a method of analysis that can easily show if the mechanisms detailed in this crisis, at least the general features and intrinsic properties of complex economic policy that appears to have collapsed all of a sudden?
Through the study of criticism of Noam Chomsky's response to contemporary neoliberalism is more plausible that the system was designed for this purpose, the analysis of American linguist, in fact, seems to be a tool that can give us a criterion for designing this framework, thanks to the description of a two-way relationship between politics and economics.
The starting point is, therefore, the critique of neoliberalism, the concept of the economy in recent decades. But what is meant by neo-liberalism?
The theoretical definition of this term is: a economic doctrine that supports the release by the state of the economy, privatization of public services, the liberalization of all non-strategic sector and the end of each Customs seal, in summary, the economic theory of the global market according to the analysis of economists has failed, as explained explicitly, Duccio Cavalieri, a professor of economics at the University of Florence
"In short, the crisis has highlighted the lack in the current capitalist system of effective self-regulating market. In this sense, we can certainly talk about the failure of neoliberalism .. "
But this economic system really works well? It really turns out to be independent of the state policies and based on true self-regulation of the market?
From here begins the study of Chomsky. In his view, in fact, the first step to understanding the economic chain is certainly a political structure in which it moves.
The author begins his discussion of the end of World War II, a real historical node to the current structure of international relations.
He describes to us the years that are defined in political science of the bipolar system, where the United States presented themselves as a global leader in power and wealth, with the hope to maintain that role and expand their economic system in what was called the " Grand Area ", that entire portion of the globe outside the Soviet bloc. How the United States wanted to impose his rule, Chomsky derives from a long memorandum remained secret, the Study of Planning Policy No. 23), written by George Kennan, head of programming of the State Department in 1948 . The summary of it is that, in order to maintain the superiority achieved, the strategies should favor a policy of power, free from sentimentality and ideologies such as the idea that the government was responsible for the welfare of the entire population, or human rights, because the only interest was to defend the U.S., that is, as Chomsky himself points out, the need American economy. He obtained, therefore, from these guidelines, the key for interpreting all the actions of U.S. military after World War II. For each area of \u200b\u200bthe "Grand Area", in fact, was given a role, and if one was inside it he refused to do it, the American intervention would be immediate, as the Vietnam War clearly demonstrated.
This first part of the analysis suggests, therefore, a first pole to put the definition of neoliberalism. If the world stage in these terms is subject to the state's political leaders, in fact, the concept of free market is a first concrete barrier.
analysis of Chomsky does not stop there however, but rather indicates another stage in history is essential to understand the current state of things, typically tied to financial reality. The year is 1971, when a major acceleration towards the contemporary neo-liberalism was caused by the Nixon administration's decision to dismantle the global economic system created by the Bretton Woods (1944), abolishing the convertibility of the dollar. Here's why:
"The Bretton Woods sought to control the flow of capital. After World War II, when the U.S. and Britain have created this system, there was a great desire for democracy. The system had to preserve the ideals of social democrats, essentially the welfare state. To do so requires controlling the movement of capital. If you let them go freely from one country to another, there comes a day when financial institutions are able to determine the policy of the States. Constitute what is called 'virtual parliament': without having a real existence, are able to influence the policy of the states with the threat to withdraw the funds and other financial manipulations. [] So all over the world, there is since a decline of public service, the stagnation or decline in wages, the deterioration of working conditions, increase in working hours. "
a result of these statements, the net result is looming political and economic as well: on the one hand, a unilateral policy imposed by the global leader in the rest of the planet, the other possibility for the flow of capital to move freely within this space. The drawing is not yet complete, but it is important to note at this point, an obvious but worthy of consideration to be explicit: who owns this capital free to move within the system? Obviously the big corporations, particularly American.
But why this free flow of capital, over the years has caused a steady impoverishment of the population, a reduction in wages and the decline of public service?
The explanation can be made through three evaluations.
Consider, first, the free movement of capital: this is the main factor that over the years has resulted in the steady decline in wages and the decline of their purchasing power. This is because the ability to move money without barriers has become one of the most powerful weapons of the firms to deploy against the demands of workers' associations to improve their wages or working conditions in general. The mere possibility that it could threaten to move production at will, or you move it to places where labor costs were much lower, progressively annihilated the demands of the working class, placed in a situation of growing insecurity.
The second question is: where do these huge capital that the power groups, investors, move at will and without asking too many questions? Chomsky responds and shows that the answer is "the State". You can define this as a crucial step in the analysis of his critique of neo-liberalism, because it explains two facts:
A) neoliberalism is pure theory, the real economy is profoundly influenced by the states;
B) multinational industries Americans have always grants or government funding, so while profits are private, the costs and risks imposed on the population.
To explain the first point, Chomsky points out how the two main international advocates of neoliberalism, the U.S. and Britain, particularly since the '80s, in the figures of the then president Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, have always carried protectionist measures in large-scale defense of their domestic markets. By analyzing the budget of the Reagan administration published in the journal "Foreign Affairs", the author claims that "he was the director of the biggest turn toward protectionism never occurred since the thirties. "
In light of these considerations, and according to the analysis of international politics U.S. made earlier, we can say that if we can speak of neoliberalism, it must be defined unilaterally. The U.S. international action opens the way for investment of its large companies, requires the mode of governance and policies to assist them and at the same time, it protects from adverse consequences that the system imposed on them may cause a reflex .
addition to being protected from the outside, however, large corporations are also defended by the policy within their states. Indeed, the protectionist measures guarantee them the market on which products to flow back (besides the one created abroad), enjoy the legislation is that the guarantees often more rights than an individual (for example, consider the Maroni law in Italy) and get the money to be invested by government subsidies, made entirely contrary to the neo-liberal theory.
In this sense, then, Chomsky argues that the profits are private but the costs and risks are public, socialized.
The result of this analysis reveals three key features:
A) the progressive impoverishment of the population of powerful states, since they exert on military costs, loans to corporations and the gradual decline wages;
B) operation of the most underdeveloped areas of the planet, as a reservoir of resources, human and material, both for production and for the creation of new markets;
C) alliance "State-Capitalism" as a weapon defense.
If the picture was and now is, was it not fate that the global crisis, which now hits us, stealing upon our heads? Certainly, as stated by the Knights, this "neoliberalism" has failed. Noam Chomsky has
perhaps right when he says that the understanding of politics and economics is affordable for everyone, whether it unmasks the rhetoric that surrounds them and are told the facts for what they are?
Matteo De Laurentis
Monday, December 7, 2009
Desactivar Veriface En Win 7
Law
Born Twenty years after the October Revolution the Soviet legal system was modeled in the definition of social rights of citizenship in the countries of Western capitalism
In December 1887, after a few months of attendance, a young student petit bourgeois origins, he was expelled from the Faculty of Law, University of Kazan in imperial Russia. Attended anti-tsarist circles. The things had gone better than his brother who was executed just before an attack to the Tsar. The young man, Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, was a particular type. He applied for readmission in Kazan, but his application was rejected. He applied to go abroad to study, but this does not was accepted. Finally he managed to enroll as "external student" ie without the right frequency, the University of St. Petersburg. In 1891, the young Ulyanov came to support the bar exam. He received the highest rating in all subjects: the only candidate of his year to achieve that excellence. Despite the brilliant start, Ulyanov was not destined for a bright legal career.
Less than a generation after proving the right to know Tsarist Best of all, Ulyanov, now known as Lenin, did away entirely with the stroke of a pen. Began, surrounded by unspeakable difficulties, a route in creating a new legal order, the impact of global continued until twenty years ago, allowing the Western legal world to reach the zenith of its civilization.
The Soviet legality
I do not think there is an aspiring lawyer (or notary or judge) that during the preparation of its investigation, not hate the object of his study to the point of need, even for a moment, its abolition. Nor do I believe there is a better description of the attitude of a revolutionary than the right of that found in Voltaire: "You want good laws? Throw everything you have and create the new. " Not many know however that this widespread yearning (we find it as such in the rhetoric of the early years of American Revolution mocked by Grant Gilmore) was satisfied by the Bolsheviks in a more advanced and constructive than it has ever been able to anyone else. An experiment in building a new legality that has never had parties for the entire twentieth century.
I think it serves a need for historical truth, the very time when we are surrounded by mediocre literature celebrating the 1989 revolution that check just happens to coincide with its copious straparlare the end of the crisis, to retrace over very brief , the contribution of the global legal order by seventy years of development of socialist legality. This is not just to finish the triptych of legal expertise 'Other' published on these pages (The manifesto of 30 September and 15 November), but also to overcome an image of socialist legality which still, twenty years after the end of the Cold War, suffers the most vulgar propaganda Atlanticist. In fact, during the Cold War writers like Hayek, Rostow, or Roscoe Pound and then countless singers in the wake of Fukuyama have built a fetish of law in opposition to the West '(the) socialist legality.
processes to Lubyanka
The construction of a dominant western law does not pass only through the "lack" of law in the contemporary from China to the Islamic world, but is based mainly in the refusal to acknowledge the contribution of socialism made to our own legal experience, then through a denial of historical experience made not only in the Soviet Union but also by us in the past. Speaking in 1990, Bush declared that "with the Soviet Union finally disappeared," the U.S. would "build a world where the rules of law would replace the law of the jungle, a world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice, a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. "
is now finally justice to this idea of socialist legality as the "law of the jungle 'accompanied by gruesome images of summary trials conducted at the Lubyanka, or on the periphery of the African Negus red during the terror of the Derg. Clearly, you walk along a road is not easy because what interests us is really made to restore the contribution of socialism (with Stalinism and everything else) to international legality and the contribution of the socialist civilization, which is so easier and granted at least interesting. In fact it is not enough to try on the tragic controversy of the thirties that cost the lives of Evgeny Pashukanis, author of a key The General Theory of Law and Marxism, fell in disgrace following the controversy with the Grand Inquisitor Andrey Vishinsky, needed or not the disappearance of the right (and thus his or her role and that of the State) in the transition between socialism and communism.
I want to show how the legal ideas of Lenin have led to a rewriting incredibilmnte advanced new law, by enacting laws designed finally to the liberation and oppression. It seems to me that this right is mirrored in forced capitalism to profoundly transform its legal institutions of economic exploitation in the direction of more inclusive and respectful of the person. It is obvious that the different narrative that I intend to share the analysis and evaluation of Angelo d'Orsi the consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall on the legal culture, which forces us today to a huge reconstruction effort because capitalism has no more incentive to show a face of international civil aviation.
A constitution to be studied
Bolshevik legislation since 1917 began to bear the conditions of the Soviet population. Lenin dreamed of a system based on the right to a roof over your head, free medical care and a job. No government in history had never before taken charge of such social responsibilities. Before the twenties, when industrialization was still far away, the law guarantees the job in a historic moment when the West the owner could fire the employee at any time. The Soviet workers were entitled to medical insurance at the expense of the employer, a benefit for incapacity to work, significant periods of rest paid during illness. The working day was given a limit of eight hours to six days a week (reduced to 7 in 1928) while still in the United States was unconstitutional law to limit working hours for children. He was retired from the strenuous work in 50 years, and set up schools for lifelong learning, free, in which workers were able to deliver securities and higher education. He was born on those first few years of work and collective bargaining were established forms of industrial democracy. A sustained program of nationalizations made this right effective, especially for use. During the crisis of '29 when unemployment reached astonishing figures in the West, the Soviet economy boasted high employment levels.
The women were given a level of legal protection that was achieved elsewhere, when reached, half a century later. For example, single mothers with dependent children was granted preferential treatment, job close to home, nursery schools and free support. All such rights, including equal pay between the genders, were constitutionalized for the first time since Stalin in '36. Already in '17 they tried to make the right wing of the house by moratorium rents and, shortly thereafter, rent control. The industry had to offer home workers. Since 1921 houses nationalized the employee does not have to pay rent or expenses. Impressonanti public building programs solved, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner, the housing problem already with the industrialization of the thirties.
The discontent of the fourth state
The progress of the legislation were equally significant in other western areas: the equality between spouses, divorce and abortion, without restrictions already introduced in 1917. The women had the right to time off for maternity keeping their jobs. As early as 1918 over half a century before Italy in the children born out of wedlock were seen the same rights of legitimate children. In criminal law Lenin strove to give effect to the principle of rieducazone due to the concept of crime as a product of social conditions. The sentences were reduced radicalmete, replaced by the prison re-education camps where they could learn a job. The euthanasia was decriminalized sodomy, and so since 1920. Important programs, learn to protect the rights of sex workers, were established to solve the problem of prostitution. In international law, the Soviet government denounced the practice of secret treaties concluded by the Tsar pubbici over 100 against the most various peoples. In 1919, the Bolshevik government renounced all its privileges including international and extraterritoriality enjoyed by capitulations in Persia, China, Afghanistan and Turkey.
This set of national laws in a panic threw the Western governments dealing with the discontent of the fourth state. The answer to this situation engenders a transformation that seemed definitive legal in Italy when still in the early eighties, I attended the Law Faculty as a student (staff workers, rent control, Law on the house). Immediately after the conference of Versailles after World War I, was born the ILO (International Labour Organization) and the Soviet model inspired the social aspects of Constitutions of the Second World War, as well as areas that now seem more utopian of the Charter of the United Nations and the European Convention on Human Rights. Soviet legislation led the transformation in the Western conception of international law (including decolonization), family law, criminal law, contract law, property and even that of racial desegregation in the United States. In the West the capitalist relationship between private law and public law in favor of the latter came out shocked. With the Berlin Wall and the purging of the jurists who followed the unification of East Germany, fell not only an ideal but the yearning all'incusione through the social right that survived the German Democratic Republic.
without external incentives, in the name of flexibility, efficiency and market we are back to authoritarianism bigoted bosses of the mines that export under the heading democracy.
Ugo Mattei, "the manifesto," December 5, 2009 
Born Twenty years after the October Revolution the Soviet legal system was modeled in the definition of social rights of citizenship in the countries of Western capitalism
In December 1887, after a few months of attendance, a young student petit bourgeois origins, he was expelled from the Faculty of Law, University of Kazan in imperial Russia. Attended anti-tsarist circles. The things had gone better than his brother who was executed just before an attack to the Tsar. The young man, Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, was a particular type. He applied for readmission in Kazan, but his application was rejected. He applied to go abroad to study, but this does not was accepted. Finally he managed to enroll as "external student" ie without the right frequency, the University of St. Petersburg. In 1891, the young Ulyanov came to support the bar exam. He received the highest rating in all subjects: the only candidate of his year to achieve that excellence. Despite the brilliant start, Ulyanov was not destined for a bright legal career.
Less than a generation after proving the right to know Tsarist Best of all, Ulyanov, now known as Lenin, did away entirely with the stroke of a pen. Began, surrounded by unspeakable difficulties, a route in creating a new legal order, the impact of global continued until twenty years ago, allowing the Western legal world to reach the zenith of its civilization.
The Soviet legality
I do not think there is an aspiring lawyer (or notary or judge) that during the preparation of its investigation, not hate the object of his study to the point of need, even for a moment, its abolition. Nor do I believe there is a better description of the attitude of a revolutionary than the right of that found in Voltaire: "You want good laws? Throw everything you have and create the new. " Not many know however that this widespread yearning (we find it as such in the rhetoric of the early years of American Revolution mocked by Grant Gilmore) was satisfied by the Bolsheviks in a more advanced and constructive than it has ever been able to anyone else. An experiment in building a new legality that has never had parties for the entire twentieth century.
I think it serves a need for historical truth, the very time when we are surrounded by mediocre literature celebrating the 1989 revolution that check just happens to coincide with its copious straparlare the end of the crisis, to retrace over very brief , the contribution of the global legal order by seventy years of development of socialist legality. This is not just to finish the triptych of legal expertise 'Other' published on these pages (The manifesto of 30 September and 15 November), but also to overcome an image of socialist legality which still, twenty years after the end of the Cold War, suffers the most vulgar propaganda Atlanticist. In fact, during the Cold War writers like Hayek, Rostow, or Roscoe Pound and then countless singers in the wake of Fukuyama have built a fetish of law in opposition to the West '(the) socialist legality.
processes to Lubyanka
The construction of a dominant western law does not pass only through the "lack" of law in the contemporary from China to the Islamic world, but is based mainly in the refusal to acknowledge the contribution of socialism made to our own legal experience, then through a denial of historical experience made not only in the Soviet Union but also by us in the past. Speaking in 1990, Bush declared that "with the Soviet Union finally disappeared," the U.S. would "build a world where the rules of law would replace the law of the jungle, a world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice, a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. "
is now finally justice to this idea of socialist legality as the "law of the jungle 'accompanied by gruesome images of summary trials conducted at the Lubyanka, or on the periphery of the African Negus red during the terror of the Derg. Clearly, you walk along a road is not easy because what interests us is really made to restore the contribution of socialism (with Stalinism and everything else) to international legality and the contribution of the socialist civilization, which is so easier and granted at least interesting. In fact it is not enough to try on the tragic controversy of the thirties that cost the lives of Evgeny Pashukanis, author of a key The General Theory of Law and Marxism, fell in disgrace following the controversy with the Grand Inquisitor Andrey Vishinsky, needed or not the disappearance of the right (and thus his or her role and that of the State) in the transition between socialism and communism.
I want to show how the legal ideas of Lenin have led to a rewriting incredibilmnte advanced new law, by enacting laws designed finally to the liberation and oppression. It seems to me that this right is mirrored in forced capitalism to profoundly transform its legal institutions of economic exploitation in the direction of more inclusive and respectful of the person. It is obvious that the different narrative that I intend to share the analysis and evaluation of Angelo d'Orsi the consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall on the legal culture, which forces us today to a huge reconstruction effort because capitalism has no more incentive to show a face of international civil aviation.
A constitution to be studied
Bolshevik legislation since 1917 began to bear the conditions of the Soviet population. Lenin dreamed of a system based on the right to a roof over your head, free medical care and a job. No government in history had never before taken charge of such social responsibilities. Before the twenties, when industrialization was still far away, the law guarantees the job in a historic moment when the West the owner could fire the employee at any time. The Soviet workers were entitled to medical insurance at the expense of the employer, a benefit for incapacity to work, significant periods of rest paid during illness. The working day was given a limit of eight hours to six days a week (reduced to 7 in 1928) while still in the United States was unconstitutional law to limit working hours for children. He was retired from the strenuous work in 50 years, and set up schools for lifelong learning, free, in which workers were able to deliver securities and higher education. He was born on those first few years of work and collective bargaining were established forms of industrial democracy. A sustained program of nationalizations made this right effective, especially for use. During the crisis of '29 when unemployment reached astonishing figures in the West, the Soviet economy boasted high employment levels.
The women were given a level of legal protection that was achieved elsewhere, when reached, half a century later. For example, single mothers with dependent children was granted preferential treatment, job close to home, nursery schools and free support. All such rights, including equal pay between the genders, were constitutionalized for the first time since Stalin in '36. Already in '17 they tried to make the right wing of the house by moratorium rents and, shortly thereafter, rent control. The industry had to offer home workers. Since 1921 houses nationalized the employee does not have to pay rent or expenses. Impressonanti public building programs solved, albeit in an unsatisfactory manner, the housing problem already with the industrialization of the thirties.
The discontent of the fourth state
The progress of the legislation were equally significant in other western areas: the equality between spouses, divorce and abortion, without restrictions already introduced in 1917. The women had the right to time off for maternity keeping their jobs. As early as 1918 over half a century before Italy in the children born out of wedlock were seen the same rights of legitimate children. In criminal law Lenin strove to give effect to the principle of rieducazone due to the concept of crime as a product of social conditions. The sentences were reduced radicalmete, replaced by the prison re-education camps where they could learn a job. The euthanasia was decriminalized sodomy, and so since 1920. Important programs, learn to protect the rights of sex workers, were established to solve the problem of prostitution. In international law, the Soviet government denounced the practice of secret treaties concluded by the Tsar pubbici over 100 against the most various peoples. In 1919, the Bolshevik government renounced all its privileges including international and extraterritoriality enjoyed by capitulations in Persia, China, Afghanistan and Turkey.
This set of national laws in a panic threw the Western governments dealing with the discontent of the fourth state. The answer to this situation engenders a transformation that seemed definitive legal in Italy when still in the early eighties, I attended the Law Faculty as a student (staff workers, rent control, Law on the house). Immediately after the conference of Versailles after World War I, was born the ILO (International Labour Organization) and the Soviet model inspired the social aspects of Constitutions of the Second World War, as well as areas that now seem more utopian of the Charter of the United Nations and the European Convention on Human Rights. Soviet legislation led the transformation in the Western conception of international law (including decolonization), family law, criminal law, contract law, property and even that of racial desegregation in the United States. In the West the capitalist relationship between private law and public law in favor of the latter came out shocked. With the Berlin Wall and the purging of the jurists who followed the unification of East Germany, fell not only an ideal but the yearning all'incusione through the social right that survived the German Democratic Republic.
without external incentives, in the name of flexibility, efficiency and market we are back to authoritarianism bigoted bosses of the mines that export under the heading democracy.
Ugo Mattei, "the manifesto," December 5, 2009
Reference Letter For Beauty Theraphist Example
Eastern A world of blood and tears
is difficult to understand how the planet will be able to find a way out of the current recession. The widening of the conflict for control of resources, however, prepare a little rosy future, making the laughable image of the market as a wonderland of the crisis is systemic, because it invests its financial aspects, social and cultural . It should be understood that Labors and banks are now the backbone of the real economy.
Capitalism is facing a systemic crisis, involving both the financial dimension to the 'real'. Giacomo Becattini the point from which to understand the consequences and the "side effects" of the current economic situation. A scholar of industrial districts as a model of economic development parallel to that based on the large enterprise, Becattini argues that the crisis exposes the limitations and difficulties of the left in the understanding of economic processes. At the same time, in this third round on how some Italian economists reflect on the current situation, calls not to make predictions about the easy ways out of the crisis, as dependent on "systemic logic" of its economic process by which national and international policies.
The fundamental questions to which economists seeking an answer can be summarized thus: what is the nature of this crisis is a crisis in financial or real, cyclical or systemic? It makes sense to compare with the crisis of '29?
The first crisis is systemic, because it involves the whole social organism, not only in its economic and financial, but also in social and cultural rights. It is financial and real at the same time, because the finance (the stock exchange, banks, etc. ..) in advanced capitalism, is the backbone - structurally infected - the real economy. Cyclic Finally, the nature of the market, closing the accounts ex post always systematically derailed from the path of development must be balanced and brought back, sooner or later the crisis.
As he played, in their inability to assess the likelihood of the crisis, the predilection of economists 'mainstream' for the formalization of mathematics at the expense of knowledge of the history of economic analysis - and history in general?
Without denying any benefit to modeling politically uncommitted rampant in the world of economic studies, I think, in essence, that this guidance contains a waiver of the main task of the economist, which for me is to analyze the functioning of economic systems as a whole, including the 'market economy', not simply as a means of maximizing economic welfare, but also the activation and development of intellectual potential of every people of every social stratum. The "great waste" of current capitalism, not offset by any increase in the gross domestic product, is its inability to enhance the intellectual potential of a few billion humans. Other than low wages or unemployment in the world "civilized", that is the true and fundamental failure market.
authoritative commentators have long pointed out that the free movement of capital and bustling (the result of liberalization and deregulation of finance) mini bases of economic democracy, that democracy itself. Believes that the role of politics today, would only be that of market regulator or should go further?
Good question! To which, however, does not know the answer but we are in trouble and did not come out easily. Nor do I see around convincing answers. As the contribution that economists can and should give you an honest and intelligent criticism, but more and more depth of oligopolistic capitalism-financial that is leading us, I suspect, the apocalypse. The point seems to be that there is no longer a separate policy from the economy. I remember the story of ED Domar in which the Minister of Commerce presents a tray on all projects of the administration, calling on every industry representative to take away what's more annoying. Well, at the end of the round, the tray is empty. A current example of the story we have, more or less the story of Obama's health plan.
Many believe that the solution of the crisis can not be that Washington-Beijing axis. It is conceivable that the European model of social status, even if one can speak a European model, may be a reference for alternative economic policies as the "Washington Consensus", as the Chinese state capitalism? Or is there a risk that the future economic-political world in Europe (with the South) is confined to a marginal position?
The world order of even the relatively near future - say 10 years - is a great unknown. Outbreaks huge, positive and negative, as the economic awakening of China and India and "turmoil", South American and African, yet not widely tested, are at work and nobody can say what will happen in Europe if the upheaval will resist. Certainly, on the one hand the dividing lines drawn European history, are clear and deep and, consequently, the pressure antiunitarie are numerous and vigorous, the other the philosophy of a united Europe is dismally economistic. Behind this Europe, I can not see, at least so far, an idea-force of true overcome national egoism and construction of a new world player in the future. I only defensive, not without interest, of course, but that does not draw any specifically European future. In short: I, I hope the cable.
The current increase in public expenditure does not affect social spending (education, health, pensions and unemployment benefits), but the rescue of banks, finance companies and large groups. What happens, however, squeezing the earnings (real wages and pensions): an intervention on the supply side rather than demand is the right strategy to overcome the crisis, returning to acceptable levels of unemployment?
Right here is the cunning of maneuver. The '29 has taught that the main amplifier of the crisis, once started, is in a panic of depositors and stakeholders on the stock exchange. So the first steps were to ensure depositors and liquidity. Of course, this practice, once metabolized by the system, reduces the fear of failure and its financial consequences, in the boards of banks and corporations, and the traders, generating, therefore, a "mongrel capitalism" which is simply a matter, by any means, your business size in socially relevant (and Fiar Alitalia docent), to be guaranteed against failure. In summary, it was one that violated DH Robertson called the "golden rule of capitalism: who decides pays errors and cheating (if they are disclosed or if they can not do) - maybe with the prison (and here the Americans teach us something) but, certainly, with its heritage. And yet. This is precisely the bad habit that denounced softly Ernesto Cuccia - that capitalism knew him well - in his famous note of 1978: "you can not do without to wonder whether, if it were not facilitated the abundant flow of subsidized loans to certain employers - both private and public - not the illusion that the goodness of investment and the prudence of the management would have ensured the success of the initiative, but security policy as a means to reach the gigantism of business, and gigantism, no one knows how or why, their luck (now you understand!) is questionable, we said, though in this case we would not have companies much smaller, but more healthy, with growth at least partly based on self and not only on debt, production capacity closer to the actual size of the markets and, above all, less political interference, legal and illegal, in the economic life of the country. "
capitalism, in short, what awaits us, from 'Alice in Wonderland. " The real problem, whose solution is judged sub speciae aeternitatis the system is not full employment whatever, but "as occupation." The economic system is best for me, the one that opens to the maximum number of young working age, a number of alternative employment. A situation that presented itself - in a rudimentary way, of course! - In those microcosms of competitive capitalism, which are our industrial districts. But the Italian left, trapped in patterns of the past - sorry say - did not notice - regularly paying the penalty in electoral terms. How sad.
This implies immense responsibilities of the system. To ensure this plurality of possibilities for all young people need reforms that affect the living flesh of society. The trend towards equality of starting points, the age at which one enters into social life (16-18 years), with all that implies, is, for me, the idea of \u200b\u200ba new left force. And if this becomes the fundamental commitment of those who govern the country, it follows a list of measures of economic, social and educational quite different from those in circulation.
What is the price that future generations will have to endure in the face of form and size of debt that governments have used today in an effort not to wreck the world economy?
NB: If we refer to the developed world today, certainly a high price, which again proves "that the eave and tears of blood that 'capitalist development, but probably not higher than that of more traditional routes of escape from crisis. If you refer to, instead, to the world as a whole, you can do many hypotheses, but as far as I know, you do not have models that allow a logical answer is not far-fetched.
What we can say with certainty is that the current crisis will certainly lead to the collapse of capitalism, but because we have no safe alternative to radical operation, and a social system can not disappear until the successor is ready. The so-called "socialism with Chinese 'and the other roads to socialism claims are, in fact, for now, a great unknown.
But the accentuation of the contrasts for the control of natural resources and incarognimento humanity, which carry relentless, do not promise anything good. I'm sorry to close in negative, but this is, unfortunately, the belief that pervades my mood.
Cosma Orsi, "the manifesto," November 25, 2009 
is difficult to understand how the planet will be able to find a way out of the current recession. The widening of the conflict for control of resources, however, prepare a little rosy future, making the laughable image of the market as a wonderland of the crisis is systemic, because it invests its financial aspects, social and cultural . It should be understood that Labors and banks are now the backbone of the real economy.
Capitalism is facing a systemic crisis, involving both the financial dimension to the 'real'. Giacomo Becattini the point from which to understand the consequences and the "side effects" of the current economic situation. A scholar of industrial districts as a model of economic development parallel to that based on the large enterprise, Becattini argues that the crisis exposes the limitations and difficulties of the left in the understanding of economic processes. At the same time, in this third round on how some Italian economists reflect on the current situation, calls not to make predictions about the easy ways out of the crisis, as dependent on "systemic logic" of its economic process by which national and international policies.
The fundamental questions to which economists seeking an answer can be summarized thus: what is the nature of this crisis is a crisis in financial or real, cyclical or systemic? It makes sense to compare with the crisis of '29?
The first crisis is systemic, because it involves the whole social organism, not only in its economic and financial, but also in social and cultural rights. It is financial and real at the same time, because the finance (the stock exchange, banks, etc. ..) in advanced capitalism, is the backbone - structurally infected - the real economy. Cyclic Finally, the nature of the market, closing the accounts ex post always systematically derailed from the path of development must be balanced and brought back, sooner or later the crisis.
As he played, in their inability to assess the likelihood of the crisis, the predilection of economists 'mainstream' for the formalization of mathematics at the expense of knowledge of the history of economic analysis - and history in general?
Without denying any benefit to modeling politically uncommitted rampant in the world of economic studies, I think, in essence, that this guidance contains a waiver of the main task of the economist, which for me is to analyze the functioning of economic systems as a whole, including the 'market economy', not simply as a means of maximizing economic welfare, but also the activation and development of intellectual potential of every people of every social stratum. The "great waste" of current capitalism, not offset by any increase in the gross domestic product, is its inability to enhance the intellectual potential of a few billion humans. Other than low wages or unemployment in the world "civilized", that is the true and fundamental failure market.
authoritative commentators have long pointed out that the free movement of capital and bustling (the result of liberalization and deregulation of finance) mini bases of economic democracy, that democracy itself. Believes that the role of politics today, would only be that of market regulator or should go further?
Good question! To which, however, does not know the answer but we are in trouble and did not come out easily. Nor do I see around convincing answers. As the contribution that economists can and should give you an honest and intelligent criticism, but more and more depth of oligopolistic capitalism-financial that is leading us, I suspect, the apocalypse. The point seems to be that there is no longer a separate policy from the economy. I remember the story of ED Domar in which the Minister of Commerce presents a tray on all projects of the administration, calling on every industry representative to take away what's more annoying. Well, at the end of the round, the tray is empty. A current example of the story we have, more or less the story of Obama's health plan.
Many believe that the solution of the crisis can not be that Washington-Beijing axis. It is conceivable that the European model of social status, even if one can speak a European model, may be a reference for alternative economic policies as the "Washington Consensus", as the Chinese state capitalism? Or is there a risk that the future economic-political world in Europe (with the South) is confined to a marginal position?
The world order of even the relatively near future - say 10 years - is a great unknown. Outbreaks huge, positive and negative, as the economic awakening of China and India and "turmoil", South American and African, yet not widely tested, are at work and nobody can say what will happen in Europe if the upheaval will resist. Certainly, on the one hand the dividing lines drawn European history, are clear and deep and, consequently, the pressure antiunitarie are numerous and vigorous, the other the philosophy of a united Europe is dismally economistic. Behind this Europe, I can not see, at least so far, an idea-force of true overcome national egoism and construction of a new world player in the future. I only defensive, not without interest, of course, but that does not draw any specifically European future. In short: I, I hope the cable.
The current increase in public expenditure does not affect social spending (education, health, pensions and unemployment benefits), but the rescue of banks, finance companies and large groups. What happens, however, squeezing the earnings (real wages and pensions): an intervention on the supply side rather than demand is the right strategy to overcome the crisis, returning to acceptable levels of unemployment?
Right here is the cunning of maneuver. The '29 has taught that the main amplifier of the crisis, once started, is in a panic of depositors and stakeholders on the stock exchange. So the first steps were to ensure depositors and liquidity. Of course, this practice, once metabolized by the system, reduces the fear of failure and its financial consequences, in the boards of banks and corporations, and the traders, generating, therefore, a "mongrel capitalism" which is simply a matter, by any means, your business size in socially relevant (and Fiar Alitalia docent), to be guaranteed against failure. In summary, it was one that violated DH Robertson called the "golden rule of capitalism: who decides pays errors and cheating (if they are disclosed or if they can not do) - maybe with the prison (and here the Americans teach us something) but, certainly, with its heritage. And yet. This is precisely the bad habit that denounced softly Ernesto Cuccia - that capitalism knew him well - in his famous note of 1978: "you can not do without to wonder whether, if it were not facilitated the abundant flow of subsidized loans to certain employers - both private and public - not the illusion that the goodness of investment and the prudence of the management would have ensured the success of the initiative, but security policy as a means to reach the gigantism of business, and gigantism, no one knows how or why, their luck (now you understand!) is questionable, we said, though in this case we would not have companies much smaller, but more healthy, with growth at least partly based on self and not only on debt, production capacity closer to the actual size of the markets and, above all, less political interference, legal and illegal, in the economic life of the country. "
capitalism, in short, what awaits us, from 'Alice in Wonderland. " The real problem, whose solution is judged sub speciae aeternitatis the system is not full employment whatever, but "as occupation." The economic system is best for me, the one that opens to the maximum number of young working age, a number of alternative employment. A situation that presented itself - in a rudimentary way, of course! - In those microcosms of competitive capitalism, which are our industrial districts. But the Italian left, trapped in patterns of the past - sorry say - did not notice - regularly paying the penalty in electoral terms. How sad.
This implies immense responsibilities of the system. To ensure this plurality of possibilities for all young people need reforms that affect the living flesh of society. The trend towards equality of starting points, the age at which one enters into social life (16-18 years), with all that implies, is, for me, the idea of \u200b\u200ba new left force. And if this becomes the fundamental commitment of those who govern the country, it follows a list of measures of economic, social and educational quite different from those in circulation.
What is the price that future generations will have to endure in the face of form and size of debt that governments have used today in an effort not to wreck the world economy?
NB: If we refer to the developed world today, certainly a high price, which again proves "that the eave and tears of blood that 'capitalist development, but probably not higher than that of more traditional routes of escape from crisis. If you refer to, instead, to the world as a whole, you can do many hypotheses, but as far as I know, you do not have models that allow a logical answer is not far-fetched.
What we can say with certainty is that the current crisis will certainly lead to the collapse of capitalism, but because we have no safe alternative to radical operation, and a social system can not disappear until the successor is ready. The so-called "socialism with Chinese 'and the other roads to socialism claims are, in fact, for now, a great unknown.
But the accentuation of the contrasts for the control of natural resources and incarognimento humanity, which carry relentless, do not promise anything good. I'm sorry to close in negative, but this is, unfortunately, the belief that pervades my mood.
Cosma Orsi, "the manifesto," November 25, 2009
Inflamation On Cervix
The European left without ideas or projects
European socialism is undergoing a profound crisis. If we leave aside the Scandinavian social democracies of the landscape is where the social conlittualità is less acute, and infants socialist parties of Eastern Europe, we can see that in other cases - France, Britain, Germany, Italy - live the socialist parties a period of great diicoltà. The only exception is Spain. In France, the crisis began in 2000 with the failure of the "plural left". Policies for economic recovery in 1997 was followed by a more liberal since 1999. Lionel Jospin, the Socialist leader and then prime minister, was the symbol of this change in course. When the increase of abstention multinational election. In Britain, the symbol of the failure of New Labour has been the disappearance of its founder, Tony Blair. On balance, the much celebrated third way was not merely a repetition, the more watered down and winking of Thatcherism, based on the dismantling of public services and privatization. Today the Labour Party is in free fall. During the last Congress leader Gordon Brown has proposed an alternative welfare state, based on a "new economic, social and political" and "market regulation". But he has speciicato where resources should go to inanza his project and has not clarified how it intends to convince the middle classes, who want more social welfare and lower taxes at the same time. Britain is not part of the euro zone and therefore has more freedom in managing public debt and deicit budget, which reached respectively 80 and 12.4 percent of GDP. But the number of unemployed, who are already three million, is expected to grow: Iscala without incentives and without further increases in public spending seems impossible to save the jobs. From Rome to Berlin In Italy the Socialist Left has collapsed in the nineties and was sucked into a black hole. The birth of the PD, with the alliance between former Communists and the Christian Democrats, has had two negative consequences: the death of socialism, understood as the ideological and political project, and the creation of a large basin for the election of reactionary populism Silvio Berlusconi. The current crisis in the Berlusconi benefit more than the left is exposing its weakness. In Germany the Social Democratic Party (SPD) has been in crisis since 2000, when one of its leaders, Oskar Lafontaine, riiutò to support the liberal turn of Gerhard Schröder. In 2005, the SPD has lost the elections and agreed to form a coalition government with the Christian Democrats International
823 November 27, 2009 19 (CDU). Get used to weave alliances with Right, the Social Democrats have not been able to offer credible solutions to the crisis and today are the party of the European left in greater diicoltà. In addition to the split be desired by Lafontaine, founder of the leftist party Die Linke, since 1998 the SPD has lost about ten million votes, even in favor of Green, Liberal and Christian Democrat, and the recent election to the presidency of Sigmar Gabriel, without a centrist ideological proilo Dein, suiciente does not seem to change things. This brief overview of a new welfare system allows us to identify some trends. First of all the Western socialist parties in the nineties have agreed to adapt to globalization, choosing the so-called third way: not oferta just do not have an alternative plan to their traditional constituency (the middle classes and popular), but do not even understand all the consequences of their choice. In this way have become more aidabili from the standpoint of government, but have lost much of their identity. Hence the current paradox: the socialist parties are overwhelmed by the crisis of liberalism, while the liberal right not hesitate to apply the traditional recipes for the welfare Afront recession. In other words, the right is proving to be more pragmatic of the left, abandoned socialist ideas, he blindly aidata the virtues of social liberalism. In Western Europe, moreover, the left-wing forces are incapable of react to the shift to the right of society, a phenomenon that is the result of the instability created by the deregulation of economic and social development of recent years and that translates into strong demand for security (social, economic and identity) and a return to nationalism. These two underlying trends are present everywhere in Europe, lay bare the serious identity crisis of social democracy, which no longer has a project speciico. In the past 15 years, the victory of liberalism was not only economic, has been largely ideological and cultural. The left does not seem to have more tools, methods, or the vision to interpret the world and to act. It has a growing diicoltà Differenciate from the right. This lack of projects and ideas is masked by a rhetoric based on the defense of traditional values: solidarity, equality, freedom and tolerance. The point is that the socialist parties seem to remember the importance of these values \u200b\u200bonly when the opposition to forget when they go to the government. The European Socialists are facing a critical crossroads: either they develop a credible or are destined to disappear slowly. What to do with the crisis of globalization? How to react to riiuto of Europeans towards liberalism? How Afront the disappointment and skepticism of the working classes and middle? The birth of a new European welfare state, now more necessary than ever, depends on the answers that the European left will be able to give to these questions. sb
THE AUTHOR Sami Nair is a French political scientist of Algerian origin. He teaches at the University Paris VIII and is working with several European newspapers, including El País and Libération.
Sami Naïr, "El Pais", Spain by 'The International' 
European socialism is undergoing a profound crisis. If we leave aside the Scandinavian social democracies of the landscape is where the social conlittualità is less acute, and infants socialist parties of Eastern Europe, we can see that in other cases - France, Britain, Germany, Italy - live the socialist parties a period of great diicoltà. The only exception is Spain. In France, the crisis began in 2000 with the failure of the "plural left". Policies for economic recovery in 1997 was followed by a more liberal since 1999. Lionel Jospin, the Socialist leader and then prime minister, was the symbol of this change in course. When the increase of abstention multinational election. In Britain, the symbol of the failure of New Labour has been the disappearance of its founder, Tony Blair. On balance, the much celebrated third way was not merely a repetition, the more watered down and winking of Thatcherism, based on the dismantling of public services and privatization. Today the Labour Party is in free fall. During the last Congress leader Gordon Brown has proposed an alternative welfare state, based on a "new economic, social and political" and "market regulation". But he has speciicato where resources should go to inanza his project and has not clarified how it intends to convince the middle classes, who want more social welfare and lower taxes at the same time. Britain is not part of the euro zone and therefore has more freedom in managing public debt and deicit budget, which reached respectively 80 and 12.4 percent of GDP. But the number of unemployed, who are already three million, is expected to grow: Iscala without incentives and without further increases in public spending seems impossible to save the jobs. From Rome to Berlin In Italy the Socialist Left has collapsed in the nineties and was sucked into a black hole. The birth of the PD, with the alliance between former Communists and the Christian Democrats, has had two negative consequences: the death of socialism, understood as the ideological and political project, and the creation of a large basin for the election of reactionary populism Silvio Berlusconi. The current crisis in the Berlusconi benefit more than the left is exposing its weakness. In Germany the Social Democratic Party (SPD) has been in crisis since 2000, when one of its leaders, Oskar Lafontaine, riiutò to support the liberal turn of Gerhard Schröder. In 2005, the SPD has lost the elections and agreed to form a coalition government with the Christian Democrats International
823 November 27, 2009 19 (CDU). Get used to weave alliances with Right, the Social Democrats have not been able to offer credible solutions to the crisis and today are the party of the European left in greater diicoltà. In addition to the split be desired by Lafontaine, founder of the leftist party Die Linke, since 1998 the SPD has lost about ten million votes, even in favor of Green, Liberal and Christian Democrat, and the recent election to the presidency of Sigmar Gabriel, without a centrist ideological proilo Dein, suiciente does not seem to change things. This brief overview of a new welfare system allows us to identify some trends. First of all the Western socialist parties in the nineties have agreed to adapt to globalization, choosing the so-called third way: not oferta just do not have an alternative plan to their traditional constituency (the middle classes and popular), but do not even understand all the consequences of their choice. In this way have become more aidabili from the standpoint of government, but have lost much of their identity. Hence the current paradox: the socialist parties are overwhelmed by the crisis of liberalism, while the liberal right not hesitate to apply the traditional recipes for the welfare Afront recession. In other words, the right is proving to be more pragmatic of the left, abandoned socialist ideas, he blindly aidata the virtues of social liberalism. In Western Europe, moreover, the left-wing forces are incapable of react to the shift to the right of society, a phenomenon that is the result of the instability created by the deregulation of economic and social development of recent years and that translates into strong demand for security (social, economic and identity) and a return to nationalism. These two underlying trends are present everywhere in Europe, lay bare the serious identity crisis of social democracy, which no longer has a project speciico. In the past 15 years, the victory of liberalism was not only economic, has been largely ideological and cultural. The left does not seem to have more tools, methods, or the vision to interpret the world and to act. It has a growing diicoltà Differenciate from the right. This lack of projects and ideas is masked by a rhetoric based on the defense of traditional values: solidarity, equality, freedom and tolerance. The point is that the socialist parties seem to remember the importance of these values \u200b\u200bonly when the opposition to forget when they go to the government. The European Socialists are facing a critical crossroads: either they develop a credible or are destined to disappear slowly. What to do with the crisis of globalization? How to react to riiuto of Europeans towards liberalism? How Afront the disappointment and skepticism of the working classes and middle? The birth of a new European welfare state, now more necessary than ever, depends on the answers that the European left will be able to give to these questions. sb
THE AUTHOR Sami Nair is a French political scientist of Algerian origin. He teaches at the University Paris VIII and is working with several European newspapers, including El País and Libération.
Sami Naïr, "El Pais", Spain by 'The International'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)