construction maison contemporaine 44

(journalists) and now, the latest figures for unemployment rate... ... published a couple of hours ago. the number of unemployed people is still rising + 16 k people on the dole in may only... the government is hoping for a stabilization of the unemployment situation but time is passing by and it is still rising... may sets a new record. france has now 3.5 million unemployed people and over the last year, the conclusion is clear : + 5% what should we expect, then, for the rest of the year ?

the french statistics institute is expecting a stabilization, but no reversal of the situation government is hoping that growth might help boost employment rates (usul) we're not quite out of the woods... as we all know, we should acknowledge the fact we are living in a "slow growth" society... "salvation" is not likely to come from an unexpected and sudden growth and yet, governments still believe or would have us believe that if companies are healthy, create value and carry economic growth unemployment rates will naturally dwindle this idea is at the core of the latest tax cuts for firms in france ("c.i.c.e")

(government spokesperson) (can't remember what "c.i.c.e" stands for) "governement spokesperson" tax credit for competitiveness and employment ! (cice) the cice contributed to increase companies profit margins (usul) ok... but i thought the goal was to incite firms to hire more people we can wonder if this system gonna have true effects on taxes, competitivity, employment (journalists) competitiveness and employment ! it's clear that there will be no quick effect on employment, even the ministry of social affairs admitted so.

no doubt cice is not meant to create jobs, it is maybe meant to create value... (usul) value, ok, but no jobs. growth will not create job. stop smooth-stalking us with that, it's close to dishonesty! (journalist) " yes, we can create 1 million jobs ! but to do so, we have to work more and give more freedom to entrepreneurs"... ... in the words of pierre gattaz (president of the french big corporate union) (usul) based on this unemployment blackmail, big corporate demand all kinds of advantages. this new law is but one example. nowadays, no one dares lift a finger against big corporates because of fear they might stop promising to create jobs. (paul jorion) work is vanishing, and that is something we desired. back in the 50's, when we pictured the year 2000, we thought

we wouldn't work anymore, replaced by robots and machines. that's what we wanted ! automatization, informatization are in the process of liberating mankind from the most mechanical, repetitive and tiresome tasks. we saw their effects over the 20th century in industry or agriculture for example. one worker with a well conveived machine can now produce as much as 10 to 50 workers in the past. shorthand typists have not been delocalised to china. they simply don't exist anymore. they were replaced by programs.

and cab drivers, panicking because of uber, what do you picture them doing in 10 to 20 years ? (journalist) nissan is planning to sell driverless cars, starting from 2020. (tester) i just have to press the buttons... and there goes the automatic pilot... (journalist)google is introducing this completely autonomous vehicle. no steering wheel. (journalist) it will allow to save 162 human lives worth of free time each day in the usa. lives that could be spent reading or ... (usul) and in the long run, we will free hundreds of thousands

of hours spent at work by bus drivers, truck drivers, or cab drivers.... all bound to disappear due to the new technologies. it is as if the "battle for employment" was lost in advance. it seems that capitalist growth is unable to provide millions of missing jobs... ...unless we develop "1 euro jobs", zero hour contracts and other forms of precarious work, already on the rise in uk, germany or portugal. all temporary solutions for a problem that is bound to deepen, year after year. this problem is quite simple : how can people unable to find a job make a living ? (journalist - switzerland) the initiative for a lifelong inconditionnal "basic income" for all is a seductive idea.

so much so that the petition has already gathered the required 100k signatures. (usul) the debate around the idea of a "basic income" is raising hopes among european youth. it is not always explained is the best of ways: here is an explanation based on fresh water and goldfish. (activist) here is the fund for "basic income" filled with the money we will save by suppressing social services unemployment funds etc. and here it goes, redistributed so that the entire population can benefit from it (journalist) ensure a basic income of 2500 chf (= 2600 $), why not ? we still need to put 30 billion chf on the table to make this dream come true.

originators of the petition do not claim to have the solution. they want to start a political debate. (usul) they do not have the solution, because of their kind souls, not daring to say things like : (politician) money should be taken where it rests ! (usul) it doesn't always sound serious , that hipppy stuff... "basic income" supporters are sometimes perceived as naive. and the goldfish, freshwater, bird wings style explanations are certainly not helping. (activist)"basic income" is like air under the wings of a bird... (usul) here we are... today, we are going to speak about labour market ! basic income activism scores very interesting points, including its critical analysis of the labour market in a time when the dominant narrative about work puts a lot of pressure on individuals

so much so that numerous young people of our generation are developping strategies to evade the labour market. to tackle this question, we are going to use a marxist : bernard friot. he is one of the few critical thinkers also attempting to explain a coherent project, a possible future, an alternative. critical thoughts on capitalism do not lack. today we're going to explore how to organize without it, how we could abolish the labour market. (friot) when you are 20 and not yet on the labour market... alright... turning 25.... you start to worry...

30 ! ... "come on ! learn how to sell yourself !" see ? our alienation ! (usul) he is indeed a marxist : he just said "alienation". (see explanations on the word alienation in the frederic lordon episode) (lordon) we have to understand that individuals always behave the way the constraints around them have them behave, and never otherwise. (usul) the labour market is tipically the kind of institution which shapes our whole behaviour. as early as in schools, we learn how to conform to its rules.

(german student) in schools nowadays, lots of students are scared of future. we all acknowledge the fact that students are in school to train for any occupation, by fear of unemployment. (usul) remember when you were 8 and dreaming of becoming an astronaut, a vet etc. ? did you wait until entering the job market to lower your expectations ? no... school selection and anticipated fear of unemployment quickly brought us down-to-earth very early on, specifically in highschool, we start to consider sales, marketting, communication or management, unconsciously reshaping our wishes to fit the needs of the labour market, a central institution in capitalism. for some of us, it has been a harsh landing.

and you know what they say: "this is real life... ... looking for a job, earning a living, no pain no gain... so you might as well prepare yourself early on, very early on..." (journalist) it is a strange park where children work, in london ... (journalist) welcome to kidzania. the place has nothing of a wonderland and everything of the real world... (manager) with tv and internet, our world is covered with brands. here, we don't educate on advertisement but on carreers opportunities (lordon) the greatest strength of capitalism is to impose salaried work (salariat) as a almost unique way of accessing money.

(journalist) some children act as clients, others work as employees on shelves or as cashiers. because here lies the true principle of kidzania... (adult) now is the best part of work ! you are going to get your first salary ! great ! (lordon) in capitalism, there is almost no other way to access money and ensure survival but to employ yourself under the auspices of capital, meaning at its service and therefore most importantly, depending on its conditions. (manager) we teach them real life values. (girl) i am gonna buy a credit card ! (eastwood) you see, the world parts in two categories : those with a loaded gun, and those who dig. (lordon) it is precisely what shows wage relations as domination relations

(manager) we want to show the next generation that nothing is heaven-sent that you should earn the right to enjoy your life. (lordon) and that's what we need to focus on, the specificity of work incitement in a capitalist regime, which is, in short, the loaded gun of survival on your head. (eastwood) you're digging. (journalist) ...demonstration is done. to enjoy the fun of driving this plane, kids will first have to study in university and pay for it... and finally understand that life is not a game. (journalist) 16 of these parks around the world and maybe a future opening in france. we'll see...

"my dear contemporaries" - the "lifelong salary" according to bernard friot (usul)" basic income" theory is born from two findings: first, there is not enough jobs for everyone but everyone need enough to live and even to have enough to buy, or companies will not be able to sell their products second, because there is not enough jobs for everyone, competition inside companies, schools and labor market in general have become fierce to the point that it was questionnable to declare "burnout" as an occupational disease which one affect close to 3 millions workers in france today, there is no more social compromise.

capitalism can imposed, well... (thomas coutrot- economist, statistician-member of the aghasted economists) capital holders can imposed their conditions to workers wich means less employment security, less social protection, wages stagnating or declining degraded working conditions no advantage whatsoever, situation is degrading on all levels but becoming possible by constraint, the weapon of unemployment and precariosness

which forced employees to accept this deteriorated new salary conditions (usul) asking for the "basic income" is asking to finally disconnect salary and employment (friot) and it was the main topic of trade union during the 20th century they fight for untie wages and employment to create the public service for example that is to say the "lifelong salary" you are not paid for your job, you are paid for your rank you pass an exam, then you are paid for your rank that's why there is no unemployment in public service

and that's why reformists try to induce it inside, of course . there is no unemployment because the salary is not linked to a job but upon a person. and it's a big progress! (usul) i've already done a video about frederique lordon, an economist but i choosed to introduced him as a philosopher, cause he's employed as such by cnrs (french national healt researsh center) bernard friot introduced himself as a sociologist because he's an emeritus sociology professor but he firstly follow an economic cursus like lordon, he's one of these economist which prefers considerate economy like human and social science

and not as an hard science like specialists on television and directorate of big companies are used to these past 2000 years we blame now are not blamed about their economy but about their position (andrã© orlã©an, heterodox economist, researcher in social studies) these economists acknowledge themselves like the holders of the only true science (journalist) so there is a battle between you within the discipline itself? (usul) this battle among economists is an historical one for a long time put aside by the dominant conception of economy, the free market one it's a comeback by the political economy, supported by friot, lordon and others you may have heard of the "aghasted economists" all these ones are called heterodox

this quarrel between orthodox and heterodox could appears meaningless but its a crucial one because when free market and money have become gods, powers allowed to clergy are enormous! if tommorow economists would ask the french president to privatize his son for saving the euro, we could all buy thomas hollande share, which i absolutely do not look like... we built an ethic from the economy which is extremely... extremely tough (bernard maris, keynesian economist, former attac member) very tough. it's an ethic very hard to live with life is very violent with capitalism

it's very, very violent you have to, you have to, you are in guiltiness you're in debt, you're in obligation and this kind of society was built by economists. (usul) anyway, friot is a specialist of the french social institutions he's well known for being the promoter and theorician of the "lifelong salary" and he's an intense critic of the labor market but not the labor itself (friot) well, i am... a labor promotor

i fight capitalism because its unability, nowadays in capitalistic developed countries, to organize the labour in a human way for the society and for the people (jean-marc ayrault, former "socialist" prime minister) the battle for employment is a lasting one it's a battle we're going to win, it's the principal battle for france (friot) from a political strategy point of view, we already had 30 years of employment battle followed up by 50 years of salary battle i have stydied it in "salarial powers", 1920-1970, when we fought for salary increase

battle for salary increase was extremely succesfull battle for employment is lost in advance by definition there is no possible full employment in capitalism (journalist) this battle is lost so we don't need to continue it? (friot) it's counterproductive to fight for full employment is fighting for multitude of employers it's fighting for staying in capitalism

we have to get out of capitalism, it's urgent (usul) like bruckner said in the previous episode that's been quite a while since we heard about the end of capitalism and yet, these last 30 years, we don't seen it back off that much... bernard friot engages us however to a radical reflexion on its foundations which, by habbits, are not even considered anymore because the triumph of capitalism, it's first of all its ideogical hegemony haven't you hear of the hegemony of capitalism? no

so you don't take any interest in politics? well, you should... (usul) to understand how much capitalism have shaped us to only think in its own terms, let's take a concrete exemple: michel michel mows the lawn outside his home let's proceed as marxists: this activity is meaningless by itself it will only make sense, socially, once it will be located in relations of production it's this position inside the relations of production that make us consider, about the same activity ,a socially constructed point of view completely different is michel working?

first case scenario: michel mows the lawn outside his house because he likes it when it's well mown nobody pays him, he doesn't create any economical value the value of his activity is only a "using" value it will not be counted in gdp in brief, we don't care, and we almost can say, because he does that in his days off, now michel isn't working even, he may be unemployed, we don't know that... second case scenario: michel is employed by gaston landscape, a company paid by the town hall for mowning outside houses of this street michel is gonna be paid, so his activity is lucrative and will be counted in gdp

this activity will enhance gaston landscape's capital because it's gonna make profits therefore, michel participates to the economic growth. he's working for real, everything is good last case scenario: michel is an official, directly employed by the town hall he doesn't enhance any private capital and his salary is paid by taxes michel produces a service, but a service that cost economical value for the collectivity we can observe here how much our point of view have been determined by conceiving michel through his relationship with the capital if he's get paid by taxes, he costs. if he's get paid by his company, he creates value but it's still the same activity, only changes the report of production

and the capital have taught us to consider bad or useless everything that doesn't increase it nevertheless, michel is cheaper when he's employed as an official than when he's employed by private company why? public sector, for achieving this task, has to pay salary here, it has to pay michel, but also his land mower, his fuel, his maintenance once collectivity have paid it all, it's all there when michel works for private sector the town hall pays gaston landscape which gonna charge for michel, his land mower, his fuel, his maintenance and a little extra it's on that extra the company gonna make profits, some capital gain because that's the goal of every private company

that's the reason why private sector will always be more expensive than public sector if we consider private sector as positive and public sector as something heavy and expensive it's because capitalism have taught us to all think like capitalits, as people whose interests are aligned on capitalism ones but this view is a ideological view thank you, mr abitbol you opened my eyes well, you better watch the road (friot) let's compare the usa healthcare system,

which entrusted lucrative property with healthcare fundings, through insurance companies this system doesn't have better results than the european one, even if this lucrative property draws 15% ot usa's gdp, to secure the fundings whereas cotisation ,in our country, provides an healthcare system which is... equivalent and more egalitarian for roughly 10 % of french gdp when we get rid of "lucrative" property,

we can see all the profits we can make and it's on an important field, not a little thing 200 billions euros, it's 10% of our gdp. that's huge and this system works just fine... since 60 years "lucrative" property? (usul) lucrative owners are the capitalits , the capital holders don't confuse them with ceo or entreprisers, it's absolutely not the same thing, it's no longer the same thing

capitalists are not the ones administating or creating companies but the ones owning them defensors of this ideologiy often maintain this confusion what france is constituted by? who france is constituted on? france is constituted by all big businessmen everything which have built wealth, and even civilization (jean-marie rouart, writer, journalist) from louis renault, car engineering, aviation they are big inventors, big industrialists

(friot) sncf (french rail operator) don't have big businessmen and it works better than a lot of companies, like arnault edf (french energy group) used to not have big businessmen, and worked a lot better when it didn't have some etcaetera what you're saying is simply huge foolishness (journalist) you both talking! (j-m rouart) it's a mad egalitarianism, a delusional egalitarianism which make you take everyone for reactionary people people with good sense (friot) well you're one, seem obvious to me

(usul) good sense, like you know, is dominant ideology the one which never question itself what friot says in this extract when he defends sncf for example, is that capital holders, the ones owning businesses are not necessarily the best managers indeed, these ones have for imminent goals to create profits, the well known dividends the shareholders payment capital is fed by dividends the whole society works for these shareholders can live unfazed

and only have to lean forward to pick their money the top 500 families of this country owned 271 billions in july 2012 they owned 330 billions in july 2013 (gerard filoche- member of the socialist bureau- work inspector) that's 59 billions more! 25% more ! 500 families ! where this money come from? you can't tell me they work for it!

we should know... they are 500 people. they have old people which probably don't work, they have children, which probably don't work if there is 200 people working, they must work big time to make 59 billions! tell me how you could make 59 billions working! it's not because they worked, its because they took it on someone else 's labour! it could'nt happen otherwise! (friot) these so-called... exceptional characters, taking exceptional decisions... to justify these unbelievable remunerations that we publicly be aware of...

not since that long time actually it's been only 20 years, 30 years top, since we witnessing this unbelievable misconduct all of these people are absolutely useless! (usul) the main idea for a marxist, is every economical value is coming from labour value doesn' t create itself, you need workers to transform matter in merchandise or to produce a service france produces every year close to 2000 billions of economical value we measuring it in the gdp

(friot) on this 2000 billions, 700 go to profits, go to capitals owners (usul) in the name of they provide money in the first place it's what we called the capital cost what's remaining of these 2000 billions gonna pay salaries and cotisations it's gonna be reinjected in the real economy, more or less directly, but the 700 billions debited by the capital are lost, or almost because only a little part will be invest again (friot) of course, after all, they're gonna invest but you can see they don't bring anything

they pickpocket us, then under their conditions, if they are willing to etcaetera they supposedly bring something but in fact not at all we should absolutely deny the fact an investor brings something he's a.... parasite which feeds on our labour and then impose to us his work terms

because he's the one controlling the investment wealth is, of course, only produced by labour when we say, for example, nowadays, mittal supports 20000 workers well, no. 20000 workers support mittal ! and these rich people (monique pinã§on-charlot- sociologist, former research directress in cnrs) managed today to make you believe that you are only costs and charges that you are society parasites

and them, they are mankind benefactors and if they leave, we are screwed of course it's not true, it's an ideological fraud! a (very) brief capitalism history (usul) let's proceed to a brief history of capitalism to understand how the capital managed to imposed himself politicaly and ideologicaly let's start with the primitive accumulation phase of the capital because it had to be created before been invested somewhere and it had to been produced by the captation of someone's else labour

this accumulation phase matches with the world conquest phase lived by europeans at the end of the 16th century by looting others continents and making local population work for barely nothing, occidental merchants established big fortunes which give them rights to demand political powers from monarchy once this upper class fully on control in the 19th century they modernized production, globalized flows, already and they kept accumulate, speculate until the well known 1929 crisis

after this crisis, countries started to contain the capital resistances to capitalism powers began to organize among european and american socialists communist party also ramp up all over the map until take control in what we called the soviet bloc then war happened, and back to france french resistance was mostly led by communists french capitalists accomodated to vichy's regime which, after liberation, placed them into a delicate situation after liberation

because employers had massivly collabotated, since 1932, big french national companies (franck lepage- popular education militant) schneider, etcaetera banks had negociated with hitler that defeat which was all but a military defeat because employers had massivly collaborated, they just have to shut up so in 1945, we snatched all of this and we snatched especially the social security

that is to say insurance against every life risks (usul) thanks to this power struggle, people like ambroise croizat social security and pension creator, or maurice thorez, creator of the public function status, authentic communists, succeded to established nearly revolutionnary institutions which excluded capitalists from large parts of economy (friot) and that's not a slightest thing because,

pensions and health represent nearly the quarter of gdp quarter of all we produce every year is allocated to health and pensions without passing by "lucrative" property whereas it was the case before social insurance and social security so it's the social contributions which replace "lucrative" property (usul) that's at the heart of friot's work

that point of contribution it"s not that simple to get so once again lets start with gdp so, that, is how much capitalists drain us in the name of lucrative property production tools are theirs, so we work for them it's sort of their seigniorial taxes, if you want they take between 30% and 40% of what we produce in 20 years, we lose 10 points in wealth sharing in france, alright? (gaã«l tanguy- founding member of popular education cooperative "le contrepied) twenty years ago, we had 70% for salary and 30% for capital we have lost 10 points

10 points, that means we go down to 60-40 seems meaningless, 60-40 in the scale, but because the scale is 2000 billions of euros, the wealth produced we are screwed of 200 billions every years! so, before they took us that now it's rather that and on this they gonna invest that, knowing that if they invest, it's not for being nice and create jobs it's for getting more money the next year

today investments are tomorrow gains i send you back to this sentence of kaldor, the economist:: "capitalists earn what they spend, workers spend what they earn" workers had to be paid with the remainder, after all they're the one working! independants pay themselves, it's quicker the others gain approximatively this in direct salary and the rest of what they earned goes to contributions that money don't go through employers or you it isn't redistributed by taxes

it's directly catches on the produced values to go in funds that's indirect salary. and it's from these funds we gonna pay for social welfare, retirement pensions and medical staff through social security bernard friot's work starts becoming disconcerting when he proposes to call all these pensions salaries because on the contrary of pension or income, salary recognizes the labour. (friot) retirement is not the right of leisure time, it's the right to finally work without employers and shareholders and when we question pensionners which have a pension closed to their former salary,

we always get the same answer : "i've never worked so much before, i've never been so much happy to work" and when we asked them why, "but because money comes every month !" because it's a "longlife salary" and they don't have to give in to employment blackmail anymore they don't need to highlight the indecent estate of a shareholder to be able to work (usul) this battle for recognition of domestical work

and in a general way, work outside capitalistic sphere, friot don't pull it out of a hat, it's not new it was already in the core of the feminist struggle we spend between 15 and 32 hours per week in domestic work. we can estimate domestic work around 600 billions euros that's huge! (elisabeth claude- anarchist federation member) and i think it's important to have this number in mind to have this proportion in mind domestic work worth around a third of the gdp

(usul) it would represent a third of gdp if its produced value would be enter into the accounts of gdp but domestic work isn't recognize by any salary so it doesn't produce any economical value (elisabeth claude) if we don't reckon that invisibility of domestic work, we don't understand... well... why poor conditions for women at work exist because we've got to be aware of a continuum: that question of the invisibility of women,

of the invisibility of women work, well... allows certains, the dominents, to justify their invisibility in labour market the fact they're less paid. because domestic work is free, cleaning lady job is poorly paid because childminder work is free at home, well when you are educator, teacher, childcare worker, nanny,

you are poorly paid because it's free at home, why would you have to pay for that? (usul) and it's a very political view, this fact that we acknowledge this or that as work isn't genuine or obvious that's a social construction and this convention fully participates to masculine domination because women are by far the ones taking care of the bigger part of this domestic work and all of this free domestic work, is obviously work proof? upper class hire people to do that work,

and the work of these people is accounted for gdp so "longlife salary" would recognize the domestic work as well as social welfare recognizes the educationnal and caring work for children but that's not obvious because to be crystal clear, this welfare should be called salary (friot) a "longlife salary", not a 800 euros per month basic income. we got to stop with that! we go to stop with that capitalistic spare wheel! (usul) so we understand why "longlife salary" is better than "basic income" :

salary expresses acknowledgment of a labour a production of value, even not included inside capitalistic sphere and labour market. "basic income" recognizes us as needy people, waiting for getting something to survive while others are producing the true economical value so friot proposes that we extend this functioning, the contribution one, for the payment of all salaries companies would contribute to a fund, the salary fund and this fund would pay for every workers, included unemployed ones

and theses ones would be free to work as they wish because every work forms, included the domestic one would be recognized by the "longlife salary" (friot) everybody, when reaching 18 years old, gets a lifelong salary irrevocable it's the first level of qualification at 1500 euros net and we can progess in qualification, until our death, if we pass tests up to 6000 euros net

(usul) to obtain these qualifications allowing us to progress on the salary scale, we would have to prove we truly produce values we would have to prove we occupy work positions and contribute to gdp, even indirectly and that's where incitement to work takes place, especially in needy sector we can even imagine the more a sector need workers, the more this sector would offer to workers to climb the salary scale quickly so companies will not pay directly their workers but will contribute to a salary fund in the same way they contribute to social security nowadays

(friot) then... a 30% contribution on added value for investment of course, 15 % don't leave the company we are in self-financing (usul) oh yeah, the idea is to get rid of parasites that is to say we attribute ourselves the investment, not leave it to lucrative owners so this would also be contributions it would go into funds, managed by democratic assemblies constituted by workers, specialists of various fields, elected citizens

with the aim of dividing investment at best if friot is against "lucrative" property, he's not against property, far from it even, he's in favor of it, but only for "using" property you would be owner of the house you lived in, of the car you drived but also of the work space and tools you used so, friot makes a distinction between "lucrative" property and "using" property (friot) make companies becoming "using" property, becoming everyone property absolutely everyone at local scale if it's a bakery

we're not gonna nationalize a bakery at national scale if it's a big flow company assuming that it would have effects on land settlement at european scale if it's the relevant one we're gonna.... it's gonna be longer, but you know, the first population who will tell "the emperor is naked" in the current popular exasperation state in europe which only start, we're at the begining of the promise 10 years of austerity

to based on our labour the thousand of billions of euros unleash by spades on shareholders since 3 years to save these necessary bastards! (usul) the idea is to prove that these bastards are not that necessary every workers would be co owners of their company which would give them an unprecedented political and economical power (friot) just like universal suffrage have generated political parties, freedom of the press or civics as well the "lifelong salary" will generate forms of collective educations which would ...

make us aware of the capacity we have to produced economical value gonna be linked to each one salary (usul) so we will need school teaching us how to become autonomous and responsable instead of one like ours, teaching only submission and competition i think you're getting that, here we've got a true society project. to get rid of lucrative owners free us while giving us more responsabilities and it's so far away from what we know that i understand why friot's project can seem... completely insane (j-m rouart) it's a mad egalitarianism, a delusional egalitarianism

because you're in your madness, you're in your own schizophrenic world you have no good sense, you're in your madness (usul) however there is no craziness in this project it's only consist on extending a socialisation of value we already known our great hospitals weren't constructed with the money of private investors or banks they were built with contribution money from social security health is a good exemple of sector largely escaping to capitalism, just like education we only need to extend these spheres, gradually ask to socialize transports, communications,

agribusiness, a field where we feel the harmfull influence of capitalism so perfect! let's sweep away capitalism! do the same for housing we have to keep in mind we already have recipies, and it's working institutions like contributions and public function status are conquest that not only need to be defended, but extended because public benefits would be amazing if we suffer at work nowadays, it's not because work is hard in fact it's less hard than 50 years ago no, it's because work, under capitalistic domination, is made tough we're scared by unemployment, we're ready to accept anything and everything for not getting excluded of labour market

but the "longlife salary" would allow us to suppress this institution, purely and solely and so, to free the labour (friot) thanks to god, nowadays, among youth, even the most educated part refuses the labor market they invent ,with some social welfare, few tricks for not depending on an employer to not becoming... job-hunted they refuse this employment blackmail !

they're looking for less subordinated forms of work (usul) because i've already talk about alternative projects, i've got to confess that friot's approach seemed to me the most consistent one today it's nothing extravagant, just continuation of conquests started by working class since decades we only have forgotten it exist, we only have forgotten we can think otherwise the capitalistic good sense (friot) my obsession is to make the link... between these thirty-something years old with no experience whatsoever of the socialistic tradition i bear and this socialistic tradition which ignoring them when we will make this link...

we will find offensive again but make this link supposed we tell to this youth : you've got the right to "lifelong salary" ! (usul) and us, it supposed we demand it, resolutly after all, now we know we can do diffenrently we can take back command of value and production and, for me, this plan seems quite neat...