No subject

Social protection is high on the international political agenda to-day.

In 2012 the International Labour Organisation adopted a recommendation on
=E2=80=98social protection floors=E2=80=99. One could think this is a minim=
alist agenda,
but if all people all over the world had their rights respected, this would
be a tremendous social progress. Social protection is indeed a human right,
mentioned in the Universal Declaration on human rights and in the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Nevertheless, more ambition is called for. I would like to go beyond =E2=80=
=98the
floors=E2=80=99 and propose a programme for a =E2=80=98social common=E2=80=
=99, for the North as
well as for the South. Why?

It is clear that when you start talking about social protection to young
people, many do not pay attention. Social protection! Something of the
past! Give me a job first, and do not bother me with things I do not need.
And indeed, many young, healthy people do not need social protection right
away, they do not need the solidarity of the rest of society, unless=E2=80=
=A6, yes,
unless they have a car or a labour accident, unless they are suddenly ill,
unless they think about their future=E2=80=A6 Just imagine you have to pay =
out of
your own pocket your stay in the hospital, or the books and the uniform for
your kid that goes to school, or just imagine you barely earn enough to
live and survive without being able to save anything for your old age.

But it remains a challenge to present this protection system to young
people in an attractive way, to explain what solidarity means, while most
of the time they do want indeed to show solidarity but do not think of
social protection in this way. It can help, then, to speak about =E2=80=98c=
ommons=E2=80=99,
since this is something they know and support. Because yes, they do want to
be responsible for their lives and the lives of other, they do want
concrete solidarity instead of an abstract system they do not really
understand.

And of course, it would not be fair to present a system of =E2=80=98social =
commons=E2=80=99
without really changing the existing systems of social protection. In
Western Europe, social protection systems are fifty or one hundred years
old and they do not answer all today=E2=80=99s needs anymore. Society has c=
hanged
and the economy has changed. This means that our social protection also has
to change. It is no coincidence that some refer to it as being a
=E2=80=98cathedral=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98the biggest revolution of the 20th =
century=E2=80=99. It was an
enormous achievement, but it is not fit for our times anymore, some
barriers to economic and social rights have to be lifted. We should make a
more coherent system. Citizens=E2=80=99 participation and contributions to =
these
changes are crucial. That is why a concept of =E2=80=98social commons=E2=80=
=99 could be
useful, a new name for a new and better system that offers more protection
to more people.

It is a fact that most people do not consider social protection to be
theirs. They see it as a government programme, or something of the trade
unions or some abstract and absent administration far away in the capital.
While most of us pay into the system, through our wages and through our
taxes. Social protection is ours and no one else=E2=80=99s. That is why a n=
ew
concept of =E2=80=98social commons=E2=80=99 is more than welcome.

These are three important reasons to *shift from social protection to
social commons*. Add to this the fact that the existing social protection
systems are currently threatened and are changing at any rate. It is
changing because even in Western Europe there are austerity policies with
cuts in social benefits and even social rights. These are neoliberal
reforms that make people more vulnerable. But social protection is also
threatened by the negotiations on free trade agreements that may liberalise
the trade in services and expose them to international competition.
Moreover, social protection is threatened by the advocates of the basic
income grants, an individualistic and liberal solution that cannot co-exist
with social protection. It would profoundly change the labour market and
would seriously threaten our desire for more equality.

What do =E2=80=98social commons=E2=80=99 mean?

It is difficult to say what the social commons of the future will look
like, since societies will have to shape them. It seems obvious to me that
certain basic principles of our current social protection will have to be
preserved, such as the respect for universal human rights, the non
commoditization of social services, the horizontal solidarity of all with
all. How and to what extent these principles have to be safeguarded will
have to be decided on by societies.

It would at any rate allow for people to be directly involved in the design
and the monitoring of our social systems. People have to be aware that it
is about their rights and that a democratic and participative approach is
necessary. It has now become unacceptable that governments and parliaments
decide, without even consulting the people. Societies have to examine what
they want and what they do not want.

Secondly, this democratic and participative co-decision making can help to
preserve society itself. Neoliberalism leads to the atomisation of society,
which, in the long term, threatens society and threatens solidarity.

Thirdly, a discussion on social rights can possibly help to extend and
broaden the rights. We all need protection, throughout our lives, and a
serious re-examination of our social protection systems can help to make
them more complete and more coherent. It is now not acceptable anymore to
have everything depend on your labour market status. And is it not urgent
to also include a couple of environmental rights, such as the right to
water?

Once one starts to reflect on these questions, it is easy to see that our
economic system as well will have to change in order to protect the whole
of society. Much has already been written on the new knowledge-economy that
will create another type of labour market. And it is clear that an economic
system that is driven only by profit-making, externalizing care and nature,
can have no future. In other words, a social protection system alone
certainly will not be able to change the economic system, but it can
contribute to more serious reflections and to some first changes.

Rethinking our economic system in a democratic way will most probably lead
to the obvious truth that the economy has to be at the service of
societies, has to produce goods and services societies need and want. In
other words, the economy has to care for people.

Which makes a full circle. The economy has to care for people, in the same
way as environmental policies have to care for nature and as social
policies have to care for people and for all of us. Care can become the
central concept, care for people, for societies and for nature. Social
commons, then, care for the sustainability of life.

What these social commons will look like is unpredictable. It will depend
on the power relations within society and on the democratic content of all
rethinking. But it seems clear to me one will have to talk of the
(un)conditionality of social benefits, of the individualisation of rights,
of the length of working hours, of contributions and of taxes=E2=80=A6

What I want to make clear with this book is that social protection in no
way is an instrument of capitalism, it is not a correction mechanism.
Social protection can be a tool for systemic change, in a positive sense,
caring for life.

The social commons are a project for the long term, but to start at a
moment when our welfare states are threatened and where social protection
is at any rate on the international agenda, could be a clever strategic
choice. It is something leftwing parties should think about, since what
better strategy can one think of to convince people than a promise of more
rights and more protection?



=E2=80=98*The social Commons. Rethinking Social Justice in Post-Neoliberal
Societies*=E2=80=99 can be found for free on the website www.socialcommons.=
eu ,
with a synthesis in Dutch, French and Spanish. Since this project is not
subsidised and is funded with private means, all donations are very
welcome.






--
Archive: http://openfsm.net/[=E2=80=A6]/1450921610083
<http://openfsm.net/projects/gsc/lists/globalsocialcommons-discussion/archi=
ve/2015/12/1450921610083>
To unsubscribe send an email with subject "unsubscribe" to
globalsocialcommons-discussion at lists.openfsm.net. Please contact
globalsocialcommons-discussion-manager at lists.openfsm.net for questions.



--=20
https://twitter.com/flgnk
Skype: kev.flanagan
Phone: +353 87 743 5660

--001a114019be23422905279ab671
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded messag=
e ----------<br>From: <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Francine Mestrum</b> <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mestrum at skynet.be">mestrum at skynet.be<=
/a>&gt;</span><br>Date: 6 October 2015 at 10:33<br>Subject: [global social =
commons discussion] NEW e-BOOK: From Social Protection to Social Commons - =
<a href=3D"http://www.socialcommons.eu">www.socialcommons.eu</a> - Eng-Fr-D=
utch-Esp<br>To: <a href=3D"mailto:globalsocialcommons-discussion at lists.open=
fsm.net">globalsocialcommons-discussion at lists.openfsm.net</a><br><br><br><d=
iv link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" lang=3D"EN-GB"><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal=
">From social protection to the social commons<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D=
"MsoNormal">Social protection is high on the international political agenda=
 to-day.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">In 2012 the International =
Labour Organisation adopted a recommendation on =E2=80=98social protection =
floors=E2=80=99. One could think this is a minimalist agenda, but if all pe=
ople all over the world had their rights respected, this would be a tremend=
ous social progress. Social protection is indeed a human right, mentioned i=
n the Universal Declaration on human rights and in the International Covena=
nt on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"Ms=
oNormal">Nevertheless, more ambition is called for. I would like to go beyo=
nd =E2=80=98the floors=E2=80=99 and propose a programme for a =E2=80=98soci=
al common=E2=80=99, for the North as well as for the South. Why?<u></u><u><=
/u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">It is clear that when you start talking about=
 social protection to young people, many do not pay attention. Social prote=
ction! Something of the past! Give me a job first, and do not bother me wit=
h things I do not need. And indeed, many young, healthy people do not need =
social protection right away, they do not need the solidarity of the rest o=
f society, unless=E2=80=A6, yes, unless they have a car or a labour acciden=
t, unless they are suddenly ill, unless they think about their future=E2=80=
=A6 Just imagine you have to pay out of your own pocket your stay in the ho=
spital, or the books and the uniform for your kid that goes to school, or j=
ust imagine you barely earn enough to live and survive without being able t=
o save anything for your old age.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">B=
ut it remains a challenge to present this protection system to young people=
 in an attractive way, to explain what solidarity means, while most of the =
time they do want indeed to show solidarity but do not think of social prot=
ection in this way. It can help, then, to speak about =E2=80=98commons=E2=
=80=99, since this is something they know and support. Because yes, they do=
 want to be responsible for their lives and the lives of other, they do wan=
t concrete solidarity instead of an abstract system they do not really unde=
rstand.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">And of course, it would not=
 be fair to present a system of =E2=80=98social commons=E2=80=99 without re=
ally changing the existing systems of social protection. In Western Europe,=
 social protection systems are fifty or one hundred years old and they do n=
ot answer all today=E2=80=99s needs anymore. Society has changed and the ec=
onomy has changed. This means that our social protection also has to change=
. It is no coincidence that some refer to it as being a =E2=80=98cathedral=
=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98the biggest revolution of the 20<sup>th</sup> century=
=E2=80=99. It was an enormous achievement, but it is not fit for our times =
anymore, some barriers to economic and social rights have to be lifted. We =
should make a more coherent system. Citizens=E2=80=99 participation and con=
tributions to these changes are crucial. That is why a concept of =E2=80=98=
social commons=E2=80=99 could be useful, a new name for a new and better sy=
stem that offers more protection to more people.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=
=3D"MsoNormal">It is a fact that most people do not consider social protect=
ion to be theirs. They see it as a government programme, or something of th=
e trade unions or some abstract and absent administration far away in the c=
apital. While most of us pay into the system, through our wages and through=
 our taxes. Social protection is ours and no one else=E2=80=99s. That is wh=
y a new concept of =E2=80=98social commons=E2=80=99 is more than welcome.<u=
></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">These are three important reasons to=
 <b>shift from social protection to social commons</b>. Add to this the fac=
t that the existing social protection systems are currently threatened and =
are changing at any rate. It is changing because even in Western Europe the=
re are austerity policies with cuts in social benefits and even social righ=
ts. These are neoliberal reforms that make people more vulnerable. But soci=
al protection is also threatened by the negotiations on free trade agreemen=
ts that may liberalise the trade in services and expose them to internation=
al competition. Moreover, social protection is threatened by the advocates =
of the basic income grants, an individualistic and liberal solution that ca=
nnot co-exist with social protection. It would profoundly change the labour=
 market and would seriously threaten our desire for more equality.<u></u><u=
></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">What do =E2=80=98social commons=E2=80=99 me=
an?<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">It is difficult to say what the=
 social commons of the future will look like, since societies will have to =
shape them. It seems obvious to me that certain basic principles of our cur=
rent social protection will have to be preserved, such as the respect for u=
niversal human rights, the non commoditization of social services, the hori=
zontal solidarity of all with all. How and to what extent these principles =
have to be safeguarded will have to be decided on by societies.<u></u><u></=
u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">It would at any rate allow for people to be di=
rectly involved in the design and the monitoring of our social systems. Peo=
ple have to be aware that it is about their rights and that a democratic an=
d participative approach is necessary. It has now become unacceptable that =
governments and parliaments decide, without even consulting the people. Soc=
ieties have to examine what they want and what they do not want.<u></u><u><=
/u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Secondly, this democratic and participative c=
o-decision making can help to preserve society itself. Neoliberalism leads =
to the atomisation of society, which, in the long term, threatens society a=
nd threatens solidarity.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thirdly, a=
 discussion on social rights can possibly help to extend and broaden the ri=
ghts. We all need protection, throughout our lives, and a serious re-examin=
ation of our social protection systems can help to make them more complete =
and more coherent. It is now not acceptable anymore to have everything depe=
nd on your labour market status. And is it not urgent to also include a cou=
ple of environmental rights, such as the right to water?<u></u><u></u></p><=
p class=3D"MsoNormal">Once one starts to reflect on these questions, it is =
easy to see that our economic system as well will have to change in order t=
o protect the whole of society. Much has already been written on the new kn=
owledge-economy that will create another type of labour market. And it is c=
lear that an economic system that is driven only by profit-making, external=
izing care and nature, can have no future. In other words, a social protect=
ion system alone certainly will not be able to change the economic system, =
but it can contribute to more serious reflections and to some first changes=
.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Rethinking our economic system in=
 a democratic way will most probably lead to the obvious truth that the eco=
nomy has to be at the service of societies, has to produce goods and servic=
es societies need and want. In other words, the economy has to care for peo=
ple.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Which makes a full circle. The=
 economy has to care for people, in the same way as environmental policies =
have to care for nature and as social policies have to care for people and =
for all of us. Care can become the central concept, care for people, for so=
cieties and for nature. Social commons, then, care for the sustainability o=
f life.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">What these social commons w=
ill look like is unpredictable. It will depend on the power relations withi=
n society and on the democratic content of all rethinking. But it seems cle=
ar to me one will have to talk of the (un)conditionality of social benefits=
, of the individualisation of rights, of the length of working hours, of co=
ntributions and of taxes=E2=80=A6<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">W=
hat I want to make clear with this book is that social protection in no way=
 is an instrument of capitalism, it is not a correction mechanism. Social p=
rotection can be a tool for systemic change, in a positive sense, caring fo=
r life.<u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">The social commons are a pr=
oject for the long term, but to start at a moment when our welfare states a=
re threatened and where social protection is at any rate on the internation=
al agenda, could be a clever strategic choice. It is something leftwing par=
ties should think about, since what better strategy can one think of to con=
vince people than a promise of more rights and more protection?<u></u><u></=
u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"=
>=E2=80=98<i>The social Commons. Rethinking Social Justice in Post-Neoliber=
al Societies</i>=E2=80=99 can be found for free on the website <a href=3D"h=
ttp://www.socialcommons.eu" target=3D"_blank">www.socialcommons.eu</a> , wi=
th a synthesis in Dutch, French and Spanish. Since this project is not subs=
idised and is funded with private means, all donations are very welcome. <u=
></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p><p class=3D"=
MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p></div><div><br><br>--<br>Archive: <a hre=
f=3D"http://openfsm.net/projects/gsc/lists/globalsocialcommons-discussion/a=
rchive/2015/12/1450921610083" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank">http://ope=
nfsm.net/[=E2=80=A6]/1450921610083</a><br>To unsubscribe send an email with=
 subject &quot;unsubscribe&quot; to <a href=3D"mailto:globalsocialcommons-d=
iscussion at lists.openfsm.net" target=3D"_blank">globalsocialcommons-discussi=
on at lists.openfsm.net</a>.  Please contact <a href=3D"mailto:globalsocialcom=
mons-discussion-manager at lists.openfsm.net" target=3D"_blank">globalsocialco=
mmons-discussion-manager at lists.openfsm.net</a> for questions.<br></div></di=
v></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><di=
v dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><a href=3D"h=
ttps://twitter.com/flgnk" target=3D"_blank">https://twitter.com/flgnk</a><b=
r></div><div>Skype: kev.flanagan</div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000=
001907349px">Phone: +353 87 743 5660</span><br></div></div></div></div></di=
v></div></div>
</div>

--001a114019be23422905279ab671--