10 10 549 https://anarhiva.com/files/original/8c5ac57f05e620f2bf43433273427042.pdf fc5effdd348152781bf5fb0961f4f8af PDF Text Text �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Fluturași secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Subject The topic of the resource Fluturași Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Info-Propaganda: Sindicalismul revoluționar (2006) Subject The topic of the resource Democrația constă în ați alege dictatorii, după ce ți-au spus ce crezi că vrei să auzi! Description An account of the resource Despre doctrina sindicalist revoluționară Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Craiova Anarho-front Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Colecție personală Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Craiova Anarho-front Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Language A language of the resource română Type The nature or genre of the resource fluturaș Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Craiova, 2006 2006 anarho-sindicalism anti-capitalism anti-statism Craiova grevă generală Info-propaganda Mihail Bakunin muncitori Pierre-Joseph Proudhon sabotaj Sindicalism sindicalism revoluționar https://anarhiva.com/files/original/c3714747da856ee622ecd47522ec5608.jpg ed9531c7dcbc0bbb68ce52306ca3c80a https://anarhiva.com/files/original/3a698933e7fa057932772211fe627cfb.jpg 70a3a0a3e85ad3de468f74984bb0a441 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Fluturași secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Subject The topic of the resource Fluturași Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 19 martie ziua internațională împotriva militarismului (2005) Description An account of the resource fluturaș Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Craiova Anarho-Front Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived colecție personală Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Relation A related resource www.antifa-antitot.blogspot.com Language A language of the resource română Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Craiova Anarho-Front Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 2005, Craiova 2005 anti-militarism anti-război Craiova Craiova Anarho-front fluturași război Timișoara https://anarhiva.com/files/original/0b215166e4870a76b2ffcf05ae778815.pdf b48918ecfd791baa18ff1082cda9abfa PDF Text Text � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Fluturași secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Subject The topic of the resource Fluturași Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Manifest C.A.F. (Craiova Anarho-Front) (2005) Subject The topic of the resource Sunt descrise ideile și principiile grupului Craiova Anarho Front sau Frontul Antifascist Craiova. Există și o altă variantă a manifestului, apărută la începutul anilor 2000: https://www.anarhiva.com/items/show/276 Description An account of the resource Suntem anarhiști, suntem împotriva naționalismului, împotriva militarismului, împotriva totalitarismului de stânga ori de dreapta. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Craiova-Anarho-Front Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived colecție personală Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 (?) Relation A related resource www.antifa-antitot.blogspot.com Language A language of the resource română Type The nature or genre of the resource fluturaș Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 2005 2005 anarhism anti-bolșevism anti-fascism anti-militarism anti-naționalism Craiova Craiova Anarho-front Frontul Antifascist Craiova manifest https://anarhiva.com/files/original/341faeb6f96fcfba8fc317d3ff7aadf3.pdf ca82d421ea6308613996a65b48d40e93 PDF Text Text Unde este proletariatul? Î A P 1 MAI  Ă ntr-adevăr. A deţine lucruri pare a fi o „creştere socială” solidă. O casă (de obicei luată prin credite „prima casă”), o maşină (printr-un credit de consum) şi alte aparate de uz casnic sunt prezentate ca fiind „bogăţii”, dacă nu măreţe, în mod cert destule încât toată lumea să creadă că este detaşată de poziţia celor damnaţi de pe acest pământ. Cu atât mai mult, acei „damnaţi ai pământului”, neavând nimic altceva decât să muncească, se pot găsi în ordinul sutelor de milioane în această lume. T oate acestea sunt nişte iluzii! În stfel, muncitorii obişnuiţi din ziua fapt, valoarea obiectelor care sunt de astăzi pot susţine cu uşurinţă deţinute actualmente de către muncică sunt mici proprietari de „bunuri de torii obişnuiţi ai lumii „civilizate”, este consum” efemere. Şi se pot comporta totalemnte insignifiantă comparată cu ca atare. Adevărul este că aceştia sunt valoarea obiectelor pe care acesta le doar nişte firimituri. Pe care, mai mult produce, pierzând cel puţin 35 de ani de atât, le poate deţine drept „obiecte din viaţă! Desigur, acum trei generaţii, de lux”. Asta doar dacă alte sute de mibunicii muncitorilor actuali ar fi fost lioane duc lipsă de ele. fericiţi dacă, la capătul vieţii muncitoreşti, îşi putea permite să aibe o casă e scurt: faptul că muncitorul obişşi mobilierul dorit… dar acum, printre nuit este actualmente îmbrăcat relaacele „absolut necesare” se pot adăugat tiv mai bine decât erau stră-bunicii săi, câteva aparaturi electrice, o maşină… este cu certitudine hrănit mai rău, are dar valoarea acestor „absolut necesao locuinţă mai bună şi conduce o mare” curente a fost diminuată, în parte şină (ţinând un telefon mobil în cealaldin cauză că majoritatea dintre acestea tă mână) nu înseamnă că posedă ceva sunt făcute de acei muncitori „foartemai bun decât un scaun lustruit. Un lanţ ieftini” (de exemplu: „lumea a trecare pare a fi „invizibil” din ia”), undeva departe sau nu cauză că mai mult de(proletariatul imigrant). Încât să-i ţină piciorul tre timp, întreaga valoare legat, în închide şi a e s mn a ceea ce „este produs” în conştiinţa. Este în lumea întâi în 35 de ani un lanţ care indide muncă a fost crescută că faptul că are comparativ cu acum 60 aceleaşi „interesă-ţi înfrunţi Șeful de ani. Se numeşte – în se” cu şeful. M C UN alte cuvinte – creşterea hiar ne dorim S E C R I TO productivităţii muncii. asta?  M ajoritatea muncitorilor angajaţi din ziua de astăzi, din societăţile dezvoltate capitaliste, refuză să se descrise pe sine ca fiind proletari. Cauza nu se află în cadrul unui „nou adevăr” privind munca. Ci în oportunitatea (în general medie sau limitată) consumului şi a proprietăţii. Dacă, precum spuneau primii comunişti, proletarii nu ar avea nimic altceva de pierdut decât propriile lor lanţuri, atunci cei care în momentul actual ar putea pierde totul nu se mai văd pe sine ca fiind proletari… şi cam aşa şi este. C � https://anarhiva.com/files/original/adb72a4991f4d1c84c03a82a6ffb652f.pdf 3b3182be3bee38675c93ba13321075cd PDF Text Text 1 MAI   s e amn Ă în să-ţi înfrunţi Șeful MU N NCI TO C S RE clasa muncitoare? u o poţi vedea pentru că o cauţi în poveştile (şi nu istoria) despre 1 mai  şi în afişele Partidului  Comunist cu ciocane şi seceri şi marşurile interminabile pentru Ceauşescu. Nu e acolo. Nu o poţi vedea deoarece te uiţi la analize şi la statistici, ştirile de la TV, talkshow-uri interminabile şi în  ziare de scandal. Nu e acolo. Nu o poţi vedea din cauza ochilor tăi injectaţi cu sânge căci toată ziua loveşti tastatura şi te simţi uşurat uitându-te la celălalt care are dureri de spate din cauză că nu stă niciodată jos, pentru că face copii xerox toată ziua. Dar tu îţi spui „Ce bine că nu sunt eu acela.” in cauză că spatele te doare toată ziua din cauză că faci copii xerox, dar te simţi bine uitându-te la curierii uzi leoarcă din cauza ploii, care vin şi pleacă înjurând. Şi-ţi spui din nou „Ce bine, nu sunt eu acela.” Din cauză că, ud leoarcă fiind din cauza ploii, treci pe lângă femeia de serviciu care stă în genunchi, frecând scările şi te gândeşti „Vai, ei o duc mai rău.” D dar Unde este Din cauză că, ajuns acasă cu dureri groaznice de genunchi şi talie, cu ochii injectaţi, cu hainele ude, cu mâinile bătătorite, întotdeauna vei găsi ceva „mai rău” la care să te gândeşti despre tine, întotdeauna ceva „mai bun” la care să te gândeşti pentru copiii tăi. Din cauza asta nu poţi vedea clasa muncitoare. Deoarece şefii şi toţi sclavii lor mici sau mari, şcolile lor, universităţile lor, jurnaliştii lor, sindicalismul lor cumpărat, au o singură preocupare, munca noastră neîncetată şi de a ne menţine iluzia cum că (noi) muncitorii (bărbaţi şi femei) acestei lumi suntem doar o grămadă de nenorociţi mizerabili, sau eşuaţi, sau incompetenţi, sau nefericiţi. Lor le pasă doar ca să ne facă să fim sinonimul oportunităţilor pierdute, drumurilor pecetluite, sinonimul incapacităţii de a fi precum ei. ar noi, muncitorii (bărbaţi şi femei), suntem cei care produc şi susţin lumea lor, în fabrici, în case, pe străzi, în magazine, în birouri. Mâinile şi minţile noastre crează totul care este furat de mâinile şi minţile şefilor. D Nu putem vedea clasa muncitoare atâta vreme cât nu putem vedea faptul că în spatele realizărilor lor e durerea noastră de spate, ochii noştri obosiţi, mâinile noastre murdare, hainele noastre ude, trezirile noastre de devreme, munca noastră. Lumea ne aparţine. Ei ne-o fură şi ne-o vând înapoi nouă. Noi o cumpărăm şi ei ne cumpără pe noi: noi cumpărăm telefoane mobile, televizoare, excursii, divertisment, două bătăi prietenoase pe spate, un 1 mai numai cu mici, bere şi manele, şi un „ar fi putut să fie mai rău„, şi mai spunem şi un „mulţumesc„. cesta este  cercul închis al  tăcerii noastre. Se învârte, mereu, iar şefii sunt dotaţi la fiecare pas ca lupta să nu înceapă. Pentru că ei ştiu că dacă va fi să înceapă, când sărăcia se va transforma în mândrie, când recunoştinţa se va transforma în intransigenţă, când înfrângerea se va transforma în furie, când vom începe să vedem clasa muncitoare de aici de unde ne vedem noi soarta proastă, atunci frumoasa şi luminoasa lor lume va începe să scârţâie. Atunci ne vor băga în seamă. Atunci se vor teme de noi. A � https://anarhiva.com/files/original/40671ddda89053c39a605a966e32f1fd.pdf 9f09b460f012a3d7cce52c8d4cafd340 PDF Text Text 1 MAI MUNCITORESC înseamnă să-ţi înfrunţi Șeful � https://anarhiva.com/files/original/73e29fb4c28be5a964d80f5a6c5cb8ca.pdf 7444bf4c0ca05ea9634d16fc9e57fe1c PDF Text Text 1 MAI MUNCITORESC înseamnă să-ţi înfrunţi Șeful � https://anarhiva.com/files/original/9f528a7fc7a6fc50e3191e9bd22f3f5d.pdf 536d48c5aa356561f0821e6dbe12f4a8 PDF Text Text +1 MAI+ MUNCITORESC înseamnă să-ţi înfrunţi Șeful � https://anarhiva.com/files/original/4f4ec5fab2e82d3fee844acefb2d51af.pdf ce7ac7f28bee11c6907b788a1afbbf8d PDF Text Text +1 + MAI MUNCITORESC înseamnă să-ţi înfrunţi Șeful � https://anarhiva.com/files/original/c64096f1ca4f4dc3033fb751d2cce912.pdf edd349d3a85c76951bdda0cba9d7dff3 PDF Text Text A M I 1  Ă  eamn s n î să-ţi înfrunţi Șeful MU NCI E R TO C S � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Colecție afișe secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Afișe 1 mai muncitoresc (2014) Subject The topic of the resource 1 mai muncitoresc înseamnă să-ți înfrunți șeful! Description An account of the resource Afișele au apărut împreună cu numărul 3-4 al revistei Creiereală. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Creiereală Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Creiereală Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1 mai 2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource A3 Language A language of the resource Română Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Secolul XXI 1 Mai 2014 Cluj-Napoca Creiereală https://anarhiva.com/files/original/69e200ddbc693f097e0e8580340a45ed.pdf d52652fb9372675f5e4a98d5d3d854f4 PDF Text Text ���� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Colecție zine secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Creiereală nr. 1 (2014) Subject The topic of the resource Cele 4 boli ale muncitorului modern 1624 km Câteva cuvinte despre... problema naționalismului Ucraina: milițiile fasciste versus statul fascist Greci: crime de stat și Europa consimte Vopsea și povești Description An account of the resource Revistă lunară pentru autonomia gândirii Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Creiereală Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Creiereală Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Februarie 2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource A5 Language A language of the resource Română Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Secolul XXI 2014 Cluj-Napoca Creiereală Grecia muncitori naționalism român români România Ucraina https://anarhiva.com/files/original/8f03770d43c8b8c6d71a2e93d224d47f.pdf dd82c5c42e3a779ff779d45064f78749 PDF Text Text ���������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Colecție zine secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Creiereală nr. 3&4 (2014) Subject The topic of the resource Povești despre demnitatea muncitorească O scurtă introducere despre muncă Hartă - știri internaționale Două, trei cuvinte despre nevoia unei conștiințe studențești Evenimentele din mai `68 Despre atacul asupra sentimentelor religioase Description An account of the resource Revistă lunară pentru autonomia gândirii Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Creiereală Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Creiereală Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Martie-aprilie 2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource A5 Language A language of the resource Română Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Secolul XXI 2014 clasa muncitoare Cluj-Napoca conștiință Creiereală studenți https://anarhiva.com/files/original/4906ff69032c0ea6f94d288d6d11a47c.pdf a0ca047a1fb26d34fac021fbf03bef09 PDF Text Text Doua, trei lucruri despre voluntariat V OM ÎNCERCA SĂ ANALIZĂM voluntariatul ca fenomen social și istoric, ca o condiție derivată a conflictului unor forțe antagonice, care ne eliberează de o percepție simplificată a fenomenului, care este în sine, prin definiție, greșită. Scopul nostru este – pe cât posibil – de a oferi o lectură mai degrabă proletară a felului în care statul neoliberal a transformat voluntariatul în ceea ce este astăzi pentru a putea înțelege de pe o poziție atât critică, cât și radicală, opoziția aproape inexistentă dintre cele două. Statul bunăstării nu este rezultatul unor inițiative caritabile care să asigure bunul comun, și nici un instrument de represiune în mâinile suveranității, ci este rezultatul unui proces îndelungat legat inextricabil de lupta proletară care a forțat clasa conducătoare să se retragă (pentru a putea contracara). Proiectul neoliberal, început mai devreme în vest (în anii ‘60-‘70) și mai târziu în est (o dată cu colapsul statelor comuniste care întruchipau modelul tipic de stat al bunăstării), atât cu forma sa extremă aplicată în țările anglo-saxone, cât și cu forma sa social-liberală aplicată altor țări europene (Franța, Germania, în prezent Marea Britanie, Spania, Grecia) tinde să fie un model general de organizare socială în lumea de azi, caracterizată de o polarizare a contradicțiilor sociale: concentrarea puterii în mânile câtorva, aglomerarea inechităților sociale în metropolele vestice, marginalizarea unor categorii sociale. „Cel mai bun progresează” și „toate inițiativele au șanse egale” sunt adaptări ale principiilor clasice ale capitalismului la noua eră în care etica muncii protestante se reîntoarce în haine vampirice în cea mai brută formă. Politicile restrictive și abolirea beneficiilor sociale introduse de statul bunăstării („de ce să plătesc pentru toți iresponsabilii care nu vor să lucreze dar vor să mănânce”) se hrănesc cu slăbiciunile ideologiei individualismului și cu conflictele privind funcțiunile sclerozate ale statului bunăstării (centralizare, birocrație, disfuncționalitate), pentru că statul neoliberal privatizează responsabilitatea: costul trebuie suportat de către cetățeni. Astfel, sectorul terțiar al societății (societatea civilă), componentă esențială a statului neoliberal, devine important prin vidul pe care-l ocupă între acesta și inițiativa privată. De o importanță centrală în dezvoltarea acestui sector, materializat prin ONG-uri, este voluntariatul, o ideologie a participării în viața politică și socială, prin care „oferi celorlalți”, care diferă radical de formele anterioare de participare socială. Înființarea voluntariatului și a ONG-urilor nu s-a datorat numai retragerii vechilor forme ale statului bunăstării de la funcțiunile redistributive ale ajutorului social din perioada anterioară, ci a contribuit și ideea de a crește implicarea cetățenilor în deciziile publice, în politicile de dezvoltare, în stabilirea politicilor pentru categorii vulnerabile, în probleme de mediu etc... Voluntariatul și ONG-urile au beneficiat însă de condițiile propice create de statul neoliberal pentru a se dezvolta. Tăierea beneficiilor sociale și sloganul „cetățenii trebuie să plătească costul” au determinat mulți „afaceriști” în domeniul politicilor sociale să caute munca voluntarilor, a „cetățenilor preocupați de bunul comun”. Cum se traduce conceptual voluntariatul astăzi? În primul și în primul rând înseamnă muncă fără plată Exemplele sunt multe: de la asistență în centre de reabilitare a consumatorilor de droguri la participarea la acțiuni ale organizațiilor de mediu, inițiative anti-rasiste, pentru protejarea drepturilor consumatorilor etc. Mai mult, chiar și companiile private au început să folosească munca voluntară pentru a-și atinge scopurile în perioade cu volum mare de muncă (!). Destul de des, statul neoliberal oferă renunțarea la taxe și dă fonduri ONG-urilor în schimbul muncii prestate. Asta permite șefilor să gestioneze energiile șomerilor rămași fără locuri de muncă din motive structurale. AM GĂSIT UN MOD SIMPLU DE A-MI ÎMBOGĂŢI CV-UL AM GĂSIT UN MOD SIMPLU DE A FACE MAI MULT PROFIT. ÎMI PASĂ CU ADEVĂRAT NU MAI TREBUIE SĂ PLĂTESC DE CEI SĂRACI ŞI NEVOIAŞI PENTRU AJUTOR MEDICAL ŞI SOCIAL. CUNOSC OAMENI NOI ŞI INTERESANŢI ŞI AM OCAZIA DE A CĂLĂTORI ÎMI PETREC TIMPUL LIBER AJUTÂND ŞI ÎNVĂŢÂND CU O MOMEALĂ DE 1-2 BILETE GRATIS, ADICĂ, NICIUN COST, AM MULT MAI MULT PROFIT ŞI CELE MAI BUNE CREIERE ÎN SERVICIUL MEU. PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT. ÎMI FAC PRACTICA DE LA FACULTATE LA UN ONG ÎNTR-UN MOD ALTERNATIV STUDENŢII ÎNVAŢĂ CUM SĂ FIE RĂBDĂTORI ŞI SĂ-ŞI OFERE SERVICIILE ŞI NU CUM SĂ-ŞI CEARĂ DREPTURILE. SIMT CĂ SUNT PARTE DINTR-O COMUNITATE ESTE O COMUNITATE DE OAMENI PRODUCTIVI ÎN SERVICIUL MEU. Acoperirea slăbiciunilor statului neoliberal. Statul neoliberal poate să acopere deficiența sau chiar absența statului fără prea multe costuri. O astfel de formă de acoperire a funcțiilor instituțiilor este munca voluntară cu dependenții de droguri, cei fără casă, pușcăriașii etc. a lucrătorilor sociali, psihologilor și sociologilor. Putem spune că un număr mare dintre voluntari și-au oferit serviciile în vechiul stat al bunăstării. Astfel, voluntariatul absoarbe vibrațiile atacului neoliberal și ajută la integrarea facilă a marginalizaților sistemului neoliberal injust care i-a creat. Mascarea cauzelor reale, prevenirea revendicărilor colective Logica practicilor voluntare nu recunoaște problemele ca fiind politice, ci mai degrabă ca probleme ale „management-ului” crizei sistemului actual sau chiar ca „eșecuri” ale planificării guvernamentale sau „scăpări” ale opțiunilor „ultra-liberale”. De aceea strategia celor mai multe ONG-uri este să propună „soluții” la problemele sociale sub forma consultanței tehnice la nivel instituțional, acesta permițând statului neoliberal să prezinte voluntariatul ca o metodă de abordare activă a „problemelor sociale”. Ideologia voluntariatului camuflează orice legătură dintre aceste probleme și altele mai mari, negând chiar existența relațiilor capitaliste și a capitalismului ca relație. Această ideologie re-politizează grupurile cele mai vulnerabile din punct de vedere social și munca lor transformată în bun comun, astfel încât practica voluntariatului rămâne captivă logicii oferitului, prezentând-o ca pe singura soluție la cerințele colective și a dezvoltării luptelor antagonice. Deconectarea problemelor de cauză și iluzia apoliticului Practica voluntariatului nu este asociată doar carității, deoarece scopul său nu este numai să ofere milă sau să aline durerea, ci vrea să influențeze și să facă parte activ din procesul decizional. Voluntariatul oferă deci, pe lângă sentimentul apartenenței la un grup și o identitate participanților, și posibilitatea intervenției în probleme individuale. Acțiunea directă e afișată de către mulți voluntari ca răspuns la inerție, la individualismul vieții consumeriste și la valorile materialiste ale economiei de piață. Cu toate acestea, principala ideologie din spatele voluntariatului este cea burghez-democrată a participării la probleme sociale. Spre deosebire de căutările metafizice de genul spiritualității, a introspecției sau a altor practici individualiste propuse de sistem ca refugiu în fața oricărei forme de auto-învinovățire, voluntariatul permite participarea activă atât a grupurilor de presiune cât și a abordărilor activiste, cu rol de exonerare pe baza îndeplinirii unei datorii sociale. Aici descoperim cea mai apolitică perspectivă asupra ideologiei activiste care motivează oamenii: identificarea emoțională și logica maniheistă (politicienii „răi”, multinaționalele „malefice”, oamenii ”creduli dar buni ”, etc.) care nu face altceva decât să camufleze și mai mult relațiile de dominare și exploatare, în același timp golindu-le de orice semnificație politică (practică). Rămânând miopatic legată de abordarea părților din problemă în locul întregului, această ideologie încearcă să facă legătura între cauză și efect în mod direct, fie prin lobby-ul pe lângă instituții „răufăcătoare” și companii „periculoase”, fie prin folosirea unor căi legale (litigii judiciare, nu lupte). Aceste practici reproduc impresia deluzorie că soluția constă în primul și în primul rând în implementarea și conformarea cu anumite reguli, chiar legi. Spre exemplu, „problemele de mediu” sunt de obicei puse sub umbrela „ecologiei”, fără vreo referire la dimensiunile politice și sociale mai largi, apoi li se dă forma implementării Protocolului Kyoto sau a folosirii unei tehnologii curate „alternative” sau chiar iau forma unei probleme individuale (de ex. folosirea bicicletei, în locul mașinii, ca mijloc de transport). Practici care să ajute sistemul să depășească probleme pe care el însuși le-a creat. Diviziuni noi, mai mult conservatorism Logica acțiunii directe, o componentă cheie a practicilor și ideologiei voluntariatului, atribuie un rol special participanților înșiși, și anume rolul de „voluntar”, adică cel mai avansat membru al societății, apărătorul drepturilor umane (liberale) și purtătorul celor mai progresiste idei și concepte. Acest concept nu face altceva decât să traseze diviziuni noi la nivel de acțiune: separare între aceia care formează avangarda acțiunii directe și luării de noi inițiative și aceia care se presupune că sunt partea mai pasivă a societății. Fără îndoială, percepția rolului specific al voluntarului în societate întărește conservatorismul și prezervă pasivitatea prin crearea iluziei că pentru fiecare problemă există un specialist gata să-și ofere ajutorul, în timp ce restul lumii își poate continua liniștit viața. Simbolicul și spectaculosul acțiunilor multor voluntari ce-și doresc ca mesajul lor să fie auzit de către societate reproduce – cu toate că nu asta este intenția lor – tocmai această percepție, ducând la forme de acțiune clasificate ca sacrificiu de sine și altruism, promovând totodată și pricepere, responsabilitate și consecvență deoarece scopurile pentru care luptă sunt complet separate de restul activităților lor zilnice. Semnificația ideologică a acestui fapt este înțeleasă foarte bine și exploatată de către șefii de astăzi, care se îngrămădesc să culeagă roadele muncii voluntarilor, prezentându-i ca pe niște „eroi”. Această aură eroică este cea care face atractiv voluntariatul în mințile celor din clasa de mijloc și a mic-burghezilor, pe lângă un alt rând adăugat în CV-ul lor. hartã hartã hartã hartã hartã hartã hartã hartã hartã Î n timp ce ochii şi urechile sunt către Ucraina, într-o ţară mică din Balcani se întâmplă ceva foarte interesant. În oraşul Tuzla muncitorii de la mai multe fabrici au protestat împotriva privatizării locurilor lor de muncă. După doar câteva zile, li s-au alăturat şomerii, studenţii şi alţi cetăţeni ai acestui oraş cu o tradiţie puternică de stânga şi pentru ceea ce reprezintă clasa muncitoare. Protestul creşte în intensitate, este trimisă poliţia şi urmează câteva zile de lupte de stradă. Încetul cu încetul, acest spirit de rebeliune se extinde în zeci de alte localităţi din Bosnia. Posteste de solidarizare în Serbia şi Croaţia. Protestatarii dau foc mai multor clădiri guvernamentale. Statul se panichează, la fel şi cele din jur, speriate că s-ar putea extinde peste graniţe. Guvernele locale/cantonale încep să demisioneze. Unul după altul, aşa numiţii reprezentanţi ai poporului îşi dau seama că nu mai sunt bineveniţi. Oamenii din Tuzla se decid să organizeze plenare (adunări populare). În Teatrului Naţional. Oricine este binevenit, mai puţin naţionaliştii, membrii partidelor sau a (fostelor)guverne. Dar care este rolul acestor plenare? Plenarele sunt exemplul perfect că democraţia directă, socialismul adevărat funcţionează. În cadrul acestor întâlniri zilnice, oamenii care se adună discută despre problemele reale pe care le are comunitatea, se caută cauzele, se găsesc soluţii, iar acestea sunt transmise către guvernele de tranziţie, cu specificarea „faceţi asta că de nu...” Noile guverne îşi pierd pe zi ce trece din puteri. De aceea se cheamă „guverne de tranziţie”. Dorinţa oamenilor este scăderea puterii statului şi creşterea puterii populare, iar faptul că deciziile sunt luate de către oameni prin prisma plenarelor, fără existenţa unui partid unic, sau a vre-unei structuri instituţionale, ci prin voinţa populară, face ca cel puţin în Tuzla să se fi instituit dictatura proletariatului. Adevărata dictatură a proletariatului, când oamenii sunt mai presus de guvern, stat, instituţii, partide. De ce este aşa de important ceea e se întâmplă în Bosnia? Faţă de Ucraina, unde partidele din opoziţie sunt finanţate din străinătate, care, la rândul lor finanţează miliţiile, paramilitarii şi protestele din stradă, făcând ca totul să fie o organizare ierarhică tipică; dar în Bosnia, muncitorii, şomerii, studenţii, cetăţenii s-au organizat singuri, fără nici un fel de ajutor. În Ucraina, victoria aparţine partidelor, fie ele din opoziţie sau de la guvernare, ceea ce va duce la un lung război de uzură în care oamenii simpli sunt prinşi la mijloc şi au cel mai mult de pierdut. În Bosnia, victoria aparţine oamenilor simpli, care au reuşit să-şi impună voinţa. Iar această voinţă este una total anti-naţionalistă, anti-partinică, anti-sistemică. Prin ceea ce fac ei, îşi recapătă puterile politice, deciziile depind de ei şi sunt pentru ei. Cu toţii au doar de câştigat. Drept concluzie: „revoluţia” nu este ceea ce este făcut brusc şi de forţe instituţionalizate precum partidele. Revoluţia este atunci când oamenii îşi impun voinţa faţă de Stat, Capital, Biserică prin nişte mecanisme simple, neinstituţionalizate, iar ei sunt conştienţi că revoluţia nu este gata. Până la final mai sunt multe de făcut. BOSNIA ŞI HERŢEGOVINA: Revoluția nevăzută �Intr-o societate a spectacolului care a abolit fiecare posibilitate de aventura, singura aventura care ne mai ramane este sa abolim societatea spectacolului Primul număr a fost printat în 300 de exemplare în Cluj. Prin prisma prietenilor, a ajuns şi mai departe: Iaşi, Bucureşti, Craiova, Timişoara, chiar şi Belgrad. Multe mulţumiri pentru ajutorul şi comentariile lor: DeNi, Alex dB., Irina M., Florinakkis, Cami, Irina P., Sorana, şi tuturor celor pe care am uitat să-i menţionăm. Noi spunem asta în faţă: suntem interesaţi în a judeca poziţii şi opinii. Motivaţia noastră pentru această dialectică, nevoia noastră de a învăţa din greşelile proprii, nevoia de a pune aplicarea practicii democraţiei consiliilor în termeni politici, şi nu a dictaturii proletariatului. În timp ce judecăm, cerem să fim judecaţi la rândul nostru. Ce ne dorim? O unealtă. Pentru a descoperi cel puţin o parte a bogăţiei ingeniozităţii sociale. Şi să propagăm idei, atitudini, percepţii. Dorind toate aceste caracteristici, Creiereală nu este ocupaţia noastră principală sau unică. Meşteşugarii nu folosesc doar o singură unealtă. Cum? Scurt: de către un proces. Ceea ce este scris este rezultatul unei discuţii şi editări colective sau provocarea unei analize viitoare. Ne asumăm responsabilitatea pentru ceea ce scriem şi încercăm să fim consistenţi în ceea ce zicem şi facem. Mai bine greşim decât să fim infectaţi de ideologie. [...] Proiecţia conştiinţei societăţii vinovate asupra studenţilor maschează mizeria şi servitudinea tuturor. Însă dispreţul nostru pentru student e bazat pe raţiuni destul de diferite. El este demn de dispreţ nu doar pentru sărăcia sa reală, ci şi pentru mulţumirea de sine în ce priveşte orice soi de mizerie socială, înclinaţia sa nesănătoasă de a se bălăci în propria sa alienare în speranţa, pe lângă dezinteresul generalizat, de a trezi un interes în ce priveşte lipsurile sale particulare. Cerinţele capitalismului modern global şi globalizant determină faptul că majoritatea studenţilor vor deveni doar muncitori de birou de nivel inferior, servind funcţiuni comparabile cu cele ale unor muncitori calificaţi din secolul XIX. Înfruntat cu perspectiva unei „recompense” atât de sinistre şi mediocre pentru sărăcia sa curentă, studentul preferă să se refugieze într-un prezent netrăit cu adevărat, pe care îl decorează cu un farmec iluzoriu şi care e vădit temporar de la un început. [...] http://mizeria.noblogs.org/ CÂND PORCII UCID COPII, OAMENII VOR SĂ-I DISTRUGĂ PE UCIGAȘI Procesul cercetării, discuţiei şi a publicaţiei este deschis. Oricine doreşte să ne găsească spre a discuta, a dezbate, să propună sau chiar să participe la proces este bine venit. Textele nu au un „proprietar” (multe sunt – sincer vorbind – furate de la alte grupuri şi alte zinuri). În această logică, oricine poate să le folosească în propriile scopuri. În orice caz, ne-am dori ca aceste texte să nu fie postate pe Internet. Dacă am fi dorit aceasta, am face-o chiar noi înşine. Preferăm imedianţa împărţirii din mână-n mână şi a comunicării faţă-n faţă. Câţi copii trebuie să moară ca să ne trezim cu toţii şi să ne dăm seama că avem aceeaşi inamici, capitalismul, băncile şi statul...? ERKIN ELVAN este declarat mort, după ce a fost timp de 269 de zile în comă. În iunie 2013 – când protestele din Turcia erau încă la apogeu – a fost împuşcat de un porc cu o canistră de gaz lacrimogen, în timp ce mergea să cumpere pâine pentru micul dejun. Pe toată durata celor 269 de zile, starea lui de sănătate a fost monitorizată de milioane de oameni prin prisma social media. Între timp, protestele s-au micşorat, de la zeci şi sute de mii de oameni s-a ajuns doar la câteva mii. Dar când Berkin a fost declarat mort, spiritul protestelor a fost reaprins. Din nou, sute de mii de oameni au invadat străzile, participând la înmormântarea copilului sau la proteste de comemorare. Iar din seara zilei morţii lui Berkin au reînceput luptele. Luptele împotriva guvernului care-şi bate joc de oameni. LEXANDROS GRIGOROPOULOS şi cu nişte prieteni stăteau şi glumeau prin cartierul Exarcheia, din Atena. La un moment dat a venit o patrulă de poliţie. Au urmat câteva schimburi de replici, în mare parte, violente şi vulgare din partea porcilor, cu scopul de a-i provoca pe adolescenţi. Unul dintre porci şi-a scos arma şi a tras în Alexis. Copilul a fost dus la spital unde a fost declarat mort. La auzul acestei fapte, oamenii din cartier, au început să iasă pe străzi. Vestea s-a răspândit, iar în doar câteva ore a început ceea ce va fi cunoscut drept „revolta grecească din 2008„ o perioadă de câteva săptămâni plină de proteste violente anti-guvernamentale, care s-a răspândit prin zeci de oraşe. Uciderea cu sânge rece a unui copil a fost ultimul strop pentru foarte mulţi greci, iar din acel moment a început o schimbare radicală a unor părţi din societate. Oamenii au început să caute alternative la batjocura cunoscută sub numele de Uniunea Europeană, FMI, Banca Mondială şi statul elen. 11 martie 2014 6 decembrie 2008 A B — Berkin. Ce nume ciudat. Câţi ani ai? — 15. Iar tu? — 15. Am avut 15 ani. Aş fi avut 21 de ani, doar dacă aş mai fi fost acolo... — Ce vrei să spui? — Ştii Berkin, într-o zi am putea să mergem să ne jucăm baschet, amândoi. Nimic nu ne va împiedica, nici Marea Egee, nici faptul că vorbim limbi diferite, zic şi eu...poate într-o zi vom merge să ne jucăm baschet, sau într-o plimbare, sau altceva, deci, ce zici? — Pentru că, Alexis, amândoi avem ceva în comun. — Da, Berkin, avem. Am fost ucişi. De către cei cu uniforme...şi acum... — Şi acum? — Să sperăm că, prin faptul că am murit, cei care mai sunt acolo vor continua să lupte. Aşa încât alţi copii ca şi noi să poată avea discuţia asta. AI, II, H LE M LU URI ILE OLȚ ATE R C TO RI ȚU OL OATE I DIN NTA ! C T AR LU CĂ TE OA RI DIN LUNT Ă! VO MUN I, LA T C , LA , HA LE IN TA VO I I N II UN ID ! AR OLU NCĂ LA M II, HA LUM LȚUR TE T N V A I , M E U O I IL A LU Ă! C M TO LU VO UNC I, LA MII, H RILE LȚUR ATE DIN NTAR ! ! Ă I A Ă O U NC I, LA M II, H ILE LU OLȚU TE CO IN T NTAR VOL UNC U M ! D M HA LU R E C OA RI U , LA M Ă I U L I, LA UMII, RILE OLȚ OAT IN T NTA ! VO UNC AI, LA II, HA RILE A C D Ă H U T M M L C E II , ȚU TE RI E L LȚU N II, H LU UM URIL CO TOAT RI DI UNTA Ă! VO MUN HAI, LA LUM RILE COL TOA RI L Ț E E II , IN NTA OL NC I, LA TA ! ILE LȚU ATE DIN OL AT R IL ȚU TE C N TO TARI D OLU CĂ! V MU II, HA E LUM LȚUR CO N TO TARI OLUN NCĂ L O ATE DI U N N DI N !V !V CO OA I, LA M RIL LA TE IN T TARI VOLU NCĂ MU II, HA LE LU LȚU ATE C TO TARI VOLU NCĂ , LA M , HAI, LE A D N I I I I U LA O I N Ă! I U O RI ! N , R M O I A T U C Ă M T M M U U A UR L H I D LU DIN UNTA ! VO UNC AI, LA MII, H ILE L OLȚ OATE I DIN TAR ! VO UNC I, LA UMII, ILE LU OLȚ OATE I M I, HA E L UR M I, H T CĂ LU ȚUR E C E C N T AR AR LUN CĂ TAR OL UN CĂ! V MUN HAI, LA LUMI RILE COL TOAT RI DIN LUNT ! VO MUN HAI, LA LUMI URIL OLȚ TOAT RI DI LUNT L O LȚ E C IN E O E II , NC VO UN I, LA MII, CĂ TA TA IN LȚU LE Ă! M , HA U ȚURI CO TOAT ARI D LUN CĂ! V MUN HAI, LA LUM ȚURIL E CO TOAT RI D LUN CĂ! V MU A C L N E T O L A O E LA II E L , LA H N T MU , HAI, nuLUM URIL E CO TOAT I DIN LUN Ă! V MU AI, LA UMII URIL CO TOA I DIN LUNT Ă! V MUN HAI, MII, istorie, traseul lui antagonist, Memoria constituie un proces, C L C , I E Ț Ț R I I R H LA N I O L L T LU E T LȚ , I O , LA I M ce constituie,Hîn nu acțiuni spontane, nici RILnoiE CO TOA RI DIN UNTA Ă! V MUN HAI, UMII URILE CO TOA RI D UNTA Ă! V MUN HAI, LA LUM RILE CO LUceea U , A sine, I C E L Ț , I E E L A , C L I U E I I T I IN IN IN N Ț E LȚ TA N O ATo IL AT O numim instantanee. Și chiar un , LA , LA AT RIL COL Este UM ȚU„memorie”. TO ARI D LUN Ă! V MU I, HAI E LUM ȚURIL E CO N TO ARI D OLUN Ă! V MU I, HAI E LUM LȚUR COL TO ARI D O E L parte E L aATmemoriei, N L I I C C dar proces de reflecție, T N T O I T I I E LA I L L O V T L O I T R N N D UN Ă! V UN AI, D N M ! !V A D I, LA M O RI L ȚU E C TO TARI OMemoM II, H LE LU LȚU TE C N TO TARI OLU NCĂ MU II, HA LE LU LȚUR ATE C TOA TARI OLU NCĂ , LA adică discuț ie, C OL OAT I DINnu memorie. N V V V I I N I O U LA O N LA I N A U M ! ! ! U C N M HAI, LUM ȚUR E C TO RI D LU CĂ M II, HAI M aHAI, E LU LȚUR TE C TO RI D OLU CĂ analiză, interCĂ istorie) TE DIN T TAR VOLUrieN(ca N L T , I A O LA N N N A I LA , LA A E I I L A I V , A , T , I V I D I O O T U AI U N I ! ! D R M U R IL E C O TO N pretare, critică MU I, HAI E LUM URILE TO ARI LUN CĂ! LU LȚpentru , HA Elunara , H E LUM LȚU ATE C IN T TARI OLU NCĂ , LA M Revista IN NTAR VOLU NCĂ , LA M antagonismuI I I N T I T autonomia gândirii critice #02 martie 2014 I LA D N IL A O A LȚ N M I, D U I I L U D Mlui social O I MI ! ar și autocritică. AR VOLU NCĂ LA M II, HA E LU ȚURIL TE C IN TO TARI OLUN CĂ! V LA M II, HA E LU LȚURI E CO IN TO TARI OLU CĂ! V MU II, HA E LU LȚUR E CO IN TO T N Ă! L L V T L LA putea fi traseMemoria este , A I I , O I L V T N I N N N D I D N M M ! M U , A D U ! I O R I O A L O U M UR LU CĂ MU II, HA LE LU LȚU TE C N TO TARI OLU NCĂ MU II, HA LE LU LȚUR ATE C TOA TARI OLU O N T NTARale un proces colecVO UNC I, LA MII, H ILE L OLȚ TE Cul Dindividual I N V V V I I N I O U LA O LA I N M R A RI C C U I, A C UM UR D Ă! Ă! M OA I D LU U N Ă! TO MU MU UM UR LU Ceste AI, tiv. Aceasta implică LA II, H ILE L OLȚU ATE N TO subiecților, TA ! VO dar N I, LA II, HA RILE L OLȚ ATE DIN T TAR ! VO UNC I, LA II, H ILE L OLȚ ATE I DIN TARI ! VOL UNC I, LA U N M I R O M O O N A C N A C A M I Ă Ă R M M mai M T T Ă R LU U ceva relațiile dintre oameni, U LU siguranță LU LȚU TE C IN T RI D Ocu NC I, LA MII, H LE LU OLȚ ATE DIN NTAR VOLU UNC I, LA MII, H ILE L OLȚU ATE DIN NTA VOLU UNC I, LA MII, H RILE V A A D O U T ! I relații fundamental poC A depășește M HA TO RI TO INTERESATE, TO AR UN CĂ mult,Mceva LU Ă!FAC O C LU PĂI, M MUNCĂ RI RI E C LU HA LU ȚU LU Ă! DECI, URONG-URILOR CO , Hcare ILE OLȚU OAT I DIN UNTA ! VO UNC AI, LA UMII, RILE OLȚ ATE I DIN UNTA Ă! VO UNC I, LA UMII, RILE COL ATE I I, LA UMIIindividuale. DIN LUNT ! VOL MUN persoanele litice. Traseul individului în R A Ă A GRIJĂ O U T U C EXCEPŢIONALĂ. U R DOMNULE DE L R L VOLUNTARII AU L L L H VO NCĂ I, LA MII, RILE OLȚ ATE C DIN NTA ! VO UNC , LA M MII, H RILE OLȚ ATE DIN T NTA ! VO UNC I, LA M MII, H RILE OLȚ OATE IN TO NTAR I C C U U I U A C U Ă Ă M PREŞEDINTE, CEI SĂRACI ŞI FĂRĂ ADĂPOST (OFERINDUO T U M U U U I U L L A L R L I D LU CĂ A T O H E E C L C Ț Ț ATE , M O UN I, LA II, H LE T IN NTAR ! VLE ILE OLȚ AT N T NTA ! VO UN I, LA II, H ILE OL OAAVEŢI DINÎNNTAR ! VO MUN OL DIN M II I I M HRANĂ ŞI U ÎMBRĂCĂMINTE CÂND O A C Ă R M T ARI D DE T R U LU LȚUR TE C IN TO RI DI OLU NCĂ LA M II, HA LUM LȚUR TE C IN CE H L LȚU ATE IN , A OLU NCĂ , LA I, H OL UNC AI, LA NT ! VSAU MII OFERĂ LE COTRAININGURI D I NT SĂ! VFACEŢI U HAI LUMI CÂND), IEFTINE O I U CO TOA ARI D UNTA CĂ! V MU , HAI, LUM RILE E CO TOA RI D GÂND U R M U T L L M R H L Ă Ă U , , A A U I I LȚ Ț E E C I, LA MI C I, LA MI NT A ĂEDUCA ! VO UNMUNCIDIN LUNT ! VOL MUN AI, LA UMII URILE OLȚ TOAT RI DIN LUNT Ă! VO ÎNUNPRIVINŢA ATE RI DINSPRE OL GRATUITE RILCHIAR RIL E CO O m A U U U A O ă U C U L L L L t H H i C T C M M Ț Ț Ț , TA ! VO UNC LA ECONOMIEI TA VO LA IN VO NCĂ I, LA MII, RILE OL ATE II, H ILE DE OL AT IN T ILE OL TORII IN FIE NADAPTAŢI ne u UN NOILE LA CONDIŢII ATE SĂ M II I D UN C U I, A ă zi LU LȚUR TE C TO RI D OLU NCĂ! LA M , HAI, LUM LȚUR TE C IN TO RI D O MU II, H ILE L OLȚU ATE N TO TAR VOL NCĂ , LA M II, HA ILENAŢIONALE? Ast A I MULTINAŢIONALE, ÎN COMPANIILE O TOA I DIN PRECARIAT U I N M ! NT Ă! V MU , HAI, LUMI URILE E CO TOA RI D UNTA Ă! V LU LȚUR TE C IN TO RI DI OLU NCĂ LA M II, HA LUM LȚUR AVEM R E C CELE LU NCCOLECTEAZĂ C LA L I N A Ț I T T CAUZE MAI BANI PENTRU TA I IN LA E T O A V A A , , D E O I D LUN Ă! V MU HAI LUM URIL COL TOA RI D LUN Ă! VO MUN HAI, O ARI UNT CĂ! C MU I, HAI LUM URIL E CO TO MICI T R , , A SALARII A MULTE LUCREAZĂ PRO BONO ÎN FOARTE DIN LUNT ! VOL MUN AI, LA UMI URILE OLȚ TOAT RI DIN LUNT Ă! VO UNC AI, LA UMII URILE COLȚ OATE RI DIN UNT Ă! VO UNC AI, LA UMII URILE L DESIGUR, L LȚ L LȚ L LȚ H H C T C M M DIN UNIUNEA EVENIMENTE CULTURALE. ŞI, TOATE H , C , Ă A O A I E I O O E E E , I N I T N T I E V NC I, LA M RIL O AT I DIN LUN Ă! V MU AI, LA UMII URIL CO TOA !V UN I, LA LUM URIL ACESTEA I D UN CO AT U A POSIBILE A E L CĂȚ C NU DIN CAUZĂ E Ț ATE C IN TO ASUNT MU II, H ILE L OLȚU ATE N TO TAR VOL NCĂ , LA M IIEUROPEANĂ. H L , L T R Ă! VO MUN AI, LA MII, H RILE COL OAT I DIN NTA I O U I N M ! D UNAJUTA R NU C POTTO RI I-AM OAMENII NOI CUI, CEVA, CI DIN CAUZA T U U LU LȚUR TE C IN TO RI DI OLU NCĂ LA M II, HA LUM H U E C E L Ț L AR LU A Ț T D IN AT I ŞI OL TCU MI CĂRORA UN AI, LASIMPLI DIN LUNT ! VO MUN ILE COL LETOPASĂ VO MOAMENI I DELUNT ĂUNOR OA 700 CO TOA ARI D UNTA CĂ! V MU , HAI, LUM RILE E C U TRĂI ! R R L R H U IN NTA ! VO NC I, LA MII, RILE OLȚU ATE DIN NTA ! VO NCĂ I, LA M DIN LUNT ! VOL MUN AI, LA UMII URILE OLȚ TOAT RI DLEI U U U LUNĂ. ACARE-ŞI Ă A U CBANIIOŞI TIMPUL LPE RI LULIBER.Ă LU OFERĂ LU L H VO NCĂ I, LA MII, RILE OLȚ ATE C DIN NTA ! VO UNC , LA M MII, H RILE OLȚ ATE DIN T NTA ! VO UNC I, LA M MII, H RILE O I C C U U I U A U Ă Ă M O MU II, H ILE L OLȚU ATE N TO TAR VOL NC , LA M II, HA ILE L OLȚU ATE IN T TARI VOL NC I, LA II, HA E LU OLȚU ATE C U U L I N M ! LU LȚUR TE C IN TO RI DI OLU NCĂ LA M II, HA LUM LȚUR TE C IN TO ARI D LUN NCĂ! LA M II, HA LUM ȚURI TE C IN TO TARI E L T O A A V A A , , D E O N O M D U I I L U M T ! I V N I A C M I, HA M I, HA E LU ȚUR TO TAR LUN CĂ CO N TO ARI D OLU CĂ! V LU URIL TE C IN TO TARI OLU CĂ! RE E E E N I I T I I LA N LA Ț A L L L V C T , A I I , N L V N O I N N D I D N M ! M D LU ! V U B A ! O R R I O A U DE IM ALĂ MU II, HA LE LU LȚU TE C N TO TARI OLU NCĂ MU II, HA O CĂ , LA M II, H ILE LU OLȚU TE CO IN T TAR VOL NCĂ H ON V V C U A ! ! U N S RI I, LA M A DI I D UN C CO UM R I, LA M UN AI A E RS MU II, H ILE L OLȚU ATE N TO TAR VOL NCĂ , LA M II, HA ILE LU OLȚU ATE IN TO TARI VOL NCĂ I, LA M II, HA E LU OLȚU PE EST ARE U U I N M ! ! I IL D R M N A B LU LȚU TE C IN TO RI D OLU NCĂ LA M II, HA LUM LȚUR TE C IN TO ARI EN NU IM Ă LU NCĂ , LA M II, H E LU LȚUR ATE C IN T NS T E O A V H A A C , J D E O O M D U I I L U D M C SC ITI M I, HA ICK TO TARI LUNT CĂ! LU URIL TE C IN TO TARI OLUN CĂ! V M II, HA E LU ȚURI E CO IN TO TARI O L E N I ER R I LA N LA Ț O L L L V T D , A I I , N I M UR D LU ! VO MU P OL TO RI D LUN Ă! V UN AI LUM UR CO OA RI D LUN Ă! HA LU VO NCĂ I, LA MII, RILE OLȚ ATE C DIN NTA ! VO UNC , LA M MII, H RILE OLȚ ATE DIN T NTA ! VO UNC I, LA M I C C U U I U A MU II, H ILE L OLȚU ATE N TO TAR VOL NCĂ , LA M II, HA ILE LU OLȚU ATE IN TO TARI VOL NCĂ I, LA M II, HA E L U AI U N Ă! M UR ! I IL D O R M O N C C U M U I Ă D M T M T L NC L LȚ R I E , HA E LU LȚUR AT LU NC , LA , H E LU LȚU ATE IN I N I A R O I I T I LA T O V A A , D CO TO ARI UNT CĂ! MU , HAI LUM URIL E CO TO ARI D LUN Ă! V MU , HAI LUM URIL CO TO DIN LUNT ! VOL MUN AI, LA UMII URILE OLȚ TOAT RI DIN LUNT Ă! VO UNC AI, LA UMII URILE COLȚ OATE RI DIN UNT L L L H VO NCĂ I, LA MII, RILE OLȚ ATE C DIN NTA ! VO UNC , LA M MII, H RILE OLȚ ATE DIN T NTA ! VO UN I C C U U I U A U Ă Ă M O U la M U e M II, H ILE L OLȚU ATE IN TO NTAR ! VOL UNC I, LA II, HA ILE L OLȚ ATE DIN T TARI ! VOL UNC I, LA II e rg M m R O R M O N A C C A U M U I Ă Ă D M T M T L LȚU TE Vom IN TARI ! VOL UNC I, LA MII, H E LU OLȚU ATE DIN NTAR VOLU UNC I, LA MII, H ILE LU L A D O I L I O C A A U C ! R Ă M M U N R T TO CO R LU RI IN NTA OLU UNC I, LA MII, H RILE L LȚU ATE DIN NTA ! VOL NCĂ I, LA MII, H RILE OLȚU ATE D D U A O M LU ! V Ă O U TO RI U Site pe care nu ar trebui să-l vizitezi niciodată... http://centruldecultura.wordpress.com C LU RI LU HA LU VO NCĂ I, LA MII, RILE OLȚ ATE C DIN NTA ! VO UNC , LA M MII, H RILE OLȚ ATE DIN T NTA ! I C C U U I U A U Ă MU II, H ILE L OLȚU ATE N TO TAR VOL NC , LA M II, HA ILE L OLȚU ATE IN TO TARI VOL NCĂ N M ! O I D LUN CĂ! MU I, HAI LUM ȚUR E C MU I, HA LU LȚUR E C N TO RI DI LU CĂ N T AR Primele cuvinte ale primei pagini ale primului număr a unei zine noi nu sunt uşoare. Din cauza aceasta am lăsat această sarcină grea pentru al doilea număr. ȘI CÂT DE CĂCAT E EA DESPRE VIAȚA DE STUDENT — Salut, eu sunt Alexis. — Salut Alexis. Eu sunt Berkin. Când porcii ucid copii, oamenii vor să-i distrugă pe ucigaşi ci t i t Cine? Noi, producătorii de plus-valoare în sectorul terţiar. Fie în mod direct (muncitori) sau indirect (studenţi). Nu avem şi nici nu dorim să avem o legătură cu partidele, ONGurile, sau alte sfere instituţionalizate. Zinul pe care-l ţi acuma în mână este unul pur politic. În sensul în care este interesat să discute despre probleme care ne afectează viaţa. Probleme care – precum dorim să credem – sunt legate şi de viaţa ta. Dacă nu, poţi returna zinul de unde l-ai luat sau (chiar mai bine) oferă-l cuiva care crezi că l-ar găsi a fi interesant. la Pentru înjurături, insulte sau orice alt tip de complimente fost  creiereala@yahoo.com Am Am Ce nu se doreşte? Să nu fie câmpul de exerciţiu al stilului intelectual; să nu fie încă o revistă jurnalistică/alternativă post-modernă; să nu fie o frăţie/suroritate care, între o cafea şi o ţigară, descoperă valoarea publicării ideilor lor; să nu fie avangarda revoluţiei şi nici un patent al limbuţiei academice. MEMORIA � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Colecție zine secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Creiereală nr. 2 (2014) Subject The topic of the resource Editoreală Când porcii ucid copii, oamenii vor să-i distrugă pe ucigași Despre viața de student și cât de căcat e ea Două, trei lucruri despre voluntariat Memoria Bosnia și Herțegovina: revoluția nevăzută Description An account of the resource Revistă lunară pentru autonomia gândirii Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Creiereală Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived https://creiereala.wordpress.com/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource martie 2014 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource scoasă sub formă de pliant care se împăturește Language A language of the resource română Type The nature or genre of the resource zină Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Cluj, 2014 2014 Bosnia și Herțegovina Cluj-Napoca Creiereală viața de student voluntariat https://anarhiva.com/files/original/01676a7d24df4c6535cc7886a914808c.pdf 3bc15e85a24531d06e9187124c78294d PDF Text Text two-three things we know about volunteerism two-three things we know about volunteerism two-three things we know about liberal framework, shouldering social costs (material or ideological) of actions that the neoliberal state and the private capital want to get rid of, it just became a medium with very important use value in the hands of the nowadays bosses. The use of NGOs and volunteerism has as ultimate purpose the imposition of social peace and the maintenance of social cohesion so that the bosses are able to elicit social consensus even in periods of sharpening of social war. Particularly, we can say that the use value of volunteerism is: [1] work without payment First and foremost it means work without payment. Voluntary work is an employment relationship more or less free which is not looking forward to a direct exchange or effect. The bosses and the neoliberal state reap today thousands of hours of volunteer work from the contribution of thousands of willing citizens. The free work includes a variety of services performed by the subjects themselves voluntarily, without the expectation of some material exchange. Examples of such work without payment are abundant: from offering assistance in hostels and rehabilitation centers for drug addicts and participation in environmental organizations, anti-racist initiatives, initiatives for the protection of consumers’ rights, etc. Moreover, even private companies have begun to rely on volunteering work to meet their needs during periods of high demand (!). Quite often, the neoliberal state offers tax exemptions and funding to NGOs in exchange for its volunteer work. This allows bosses to manage the surplus population, which due to the destabilization of the labor market, has been unemployed. Basic consequence of this strategy is the management of unemployment. Examples of such actions of voluntary participation in programs are often added to the CV and allow, supposedly, participants to find, later on, a job on the labor market. [2] coverage of the weaknesses of the neoliberal state The neoliberal state can inexpensively supplement the deficient presence of the state or even its complete absence, example of such a form of substitution of governmental functions with voluntary work of drug addicts, the homeless, prisoners, etc of many social workers, psychologists and sociologists. Thus, it takes place the restoration of the “fractured” social cohesion caused by the collapse of the welfare policies. The transformations described in the beginning of this text led to a reconfiguration of the forms of social solidarity. The rise of unemployment and of individualism led to the marginalization and the ghettoisation of large parts of the population. At this point volunteerism is intervening to fill in a “gap” the collapsed welfare state created. Volunteering is this way invited to absorb the vibrations of the neoliberal attack and to help smooth the integration of the marginal and the dispossessed of the unfair neo-liberal system. An example of such a voluntary practice, known as “anti-revolutionary summers”, implemented in France since the late ‘80s, after the rise of the semilegal and the “transgressive” acts of youth groups aimed at reintegrating the marginalized youth by making them serve for charities. [3] supplement of state policies Volunteerism is the promotion and mainstreaming of voluntary ideology and practice as a subsidiary component of government policies. For example, the commitment of so many military companies with the U.S. state in Iraq war field, companies that either have a role in training the local population in contemporary practices of security and war, or assume custody and safety of various military targets, confirms a collaboration of volunteering with the for- eign policy of the state. The private capital recognizing the signs of the times glosses its activities (that have a militaristic character in this case), always with the same purpose (doing business as usual), in consistency with the military arm of the state. More simply, we are talking more about the use of a social umbrella (or better a social label, “volunteerism”) from the private military capital and from the American state, in order to extract the necessary social consensus, rather than an application of voluntary practices and ideology. [4] masking the real causes The logic of voluntary practices does not see problems as political, but rather as problems of “management” of the crisis of the existing system or even as “failures” of government planning or “glitches” of the “ultra-liberal” options. That is why the strategy followed by most NGOs and voluntary organizations is to propose “solutions” to social related problems in the form of technical guidance at institutional level. This element is what allows the neoliberal state to present volunteering as a way to actively address the “social problems”. The ideology of volunteerism obscures any connection of these problems with others, omitting – ultimately – the very existence of capitalist relations and the awareness of capitalism as a relation. This ideology can turn – this way – to commons large groups of the most socially vulnerable part of the population, re-politicizing them in a way that this practice (of volunteering) remains captive to the logic of offering, presenting it as the one and the only answer in place of collective claims and the development of antagonistic struggles. [5] disconnection of the problems from their causes and the apolitical deception The practice of volunteers is not only associated with charity, because volunteering is not intended merely to offer pity or to ease the pain, but also to influence the progress and to take active part in decision-making. Thus, volunteering offers, apart from a sense of common belonging and an identity of the participants, the possibility of intervention in individual issues. The use of direct action is displayed by many volunteers as the answer to the inertia, the individualism of consumerist life and the materialistic values of the market economy. However, the basic ideological line of volunteering is primarily the bourgeois-democratic ideology of participation in social issues. Unlike a number of metaphysical searches such as the inner spirituality, introspection and other individualistic practices that are currently offered by the system as a refuge from any kind of guilt and remorse, volunteering allows the active participation of both pressure groups and activist kind of reactions, which operate exculpatory for volunteers on the basis of fulfilling a social duty. We discover right here, the most apolitical view of the activist ideology that motivates people on the basis of emotional identifications and manichaistic logics (the “bad” politicians, the “evil” multinationals, the “unsuspected but good” people, etc.) that are doing nothing else but to furthermore conceal the relations of domination and exploitation while emptying the contents of these relations of any practical political orientation. Staying this ideologically myopically wedded to address the individual, it tries to connect every action with a direct effect, either lobbying in various “harmful” institutions and “dangerous” companies, or through the use of various legalistic routes (court litigations - not struggles). These practices reproduce the misleading impression that the solution to the problems is first and foremost a question of compliance or implementation of some rules (if not laws). APRIL 2014 CLUJ-NAPOCA VOLUNTEERS? USEFUL. TO WHOM? For example, the “environmental problem” is usually firstly considered in the space of “ecology” without any reference to the broader political and social issues, then it is converted into a question of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol or the use of an “alternative” clean technology or even transformed into an individual choice (i.e. the use of the bicycle for inter-urban transportation). All these practices actually help further the system to conceal the problems it has itself caused. [6] new divisions, more conservatism The logic of direct action, a key component of voluntary practices and ideology of volunteering, assigns a very special role to the participants themselves. It assigns the social role of the “volunteer”, i.e. the most forwardlooking member of the society, the defender of human (liberal) rights and the record-keeper of the most progressive ideas and concepts. This concept that does nothing else than to set new divisions at the level of action, it creates divisions between those who form a special vanguard of direct action that take actions and initiatives and those who are supposedly a more passive part of the society. Undoubtedly, the perception of the specific role of the volunteer in a society further heightens the conservatism and preserves the passivity as long as it creates the illusion that for every problem there is a specialist at the right time that will be called to offer his help, while the others can continue their lives undistracted as they did before. The symbolic and spectacular type of actions of many volunteers who want to get their message across to the society reproduce – even though this is not necessarily their intention – precisely this perception, leading to forms of action classified as acts of self-sacrifice and altruism, but not ultimately promote responsibility, consistency and awareness because the purposes for which they are fighting are completely separated from their everyday practice/life. The ideological significance of this very fact is understood very well by the today’s bosses and therefore they run to reap the participation of volunteers in various activities by presenting them as “heroes”. That “heroisation” is what makes nowadays the voluntary ideology particularly attractive in the sensitive brains of many middle-class and petty-bourgeoisie, besides another line in the CV offered for a getting a better job. Epilogue W E TRIED TO ANALYZE VOLUNTEERISM as a social and historical phenomenon, as a derivative condition of conflicting, antagonistic forces. The purpose of this short text is – as possible – to lead to a discussion (either open or personal) from a proletarian (not academically) point of view about: 1. The way the neoliberal state transformed volunteerism in what we know nowadays, 2. How is volunteerism conceptualized nowadays, 3. Who takes advantage from the results of volunteerism. We are definitely not interested in discussing possible solutions or what we “must do” to make our life better with more solidarity and less volunteerism. First of all we must learn to analyze and then to discuss. ...and many thanks to Cami TWO-THREE THINGS WE KNOW ABOUT VOLUNTEERISM W E W IL L T RY TO A NA LY Z E volunteerism as a social and historical phenomenon, as a condition that derived as a result of the conflict between antagonistic forces. This way of perceiving things – and we deeply believe that – frees us from a unilateral understanding of the phenomenon, which, as such, is by definition wrong. Keep in mind that our analysis does not purport to be crowned with sociological laurels, which we also dislike. Our aim was – as far as possible – to offer a proletarian reading of the neoliberal form of the state that transformed volunteering in what we know nowadays in order to understand from a radical and critical position the almost inexistent opposition between the two. The welfare state is neither the result of some charitable initiatives to ensure the common good, nor just a tool of repression in the hands of the sovereign, but it is the result of a long process that is inextricably linked to workers’ struggles who were the ones that forced the ruling class to retreat (in order to fight back). Referring to both forms of the state, the welfare state and the neoliberal state, we should bear in mind the social relations. These relations arise through the conflict of antagonistic forces and express, in every moment, the dynamic equilibrium point of this conflict. This concept of the neoliberal state became institutionalized as an expression of bosses’ primacy in their clash with movements of social antagonism, while this expression also takes into accounts the assimilation of a large part of the radical criticism of social subjects in the form of the welfare state t hey rebelled against in the previous period. We c a n s e e t he t r a nsfor mat ion of t he welfare state (first in the countries of the western block) of the ‘60s-‘70s into the neoliberal state in its form during ‘80s-’90s until nowadays. In the former eastern block this change takes place a little later when the “communist” state (as the literal welfare state) will abruptly collapse, with the accolades, of its citizens. BASED ON A TEXT FROM THE MAGAZINE “THE BOX” (Το Κιβώτιο), ISSUE #03, JUNE 2005, GREECE �two-three things we know about volunteerism two-three things we know about volunteerism two-three things we know about [A] The transformation νew technologies First, the way of production in the western world is reconstructed around the pole of automation and informatics. A statistically significant variation of the importance of the tertiary sector (which becomes in the last thirty years, larger and larger), ie the sector of services, compared to the previous period, is a crucial part of this development. The new technologies (computers, robotics) become more and more valuable, as they function as a tool for even greater reduction of the human factor at work. In two ways: first by replacing human labor (what Marxists call reduction of the organic composition of capital), second by reducing the size of the contribution of the human factor in the production process. Think for example how the replacement of the cashier of the bank from an automatic money machine helps (apart from reducing production cost), to reduce the probability of error in the financial transaction. mechanization of work They are the same struggles of workers under the slogan of “refusal of work” (as was presented in the act of sabotage by stopping production, or production of defective parts, strikes, absenteeism from everyday work, etc), forcing capital to put machines that replace human labor in industry. It is the collectivization of resistance that creates communities of struggle and solidarity and the relatively favorable environment for their creation in the fordist model of production that has to be answered by making producers work individually in front of computers, isolated from one another. Or even forcing bosses to transform the production plan. A good example to understand the above mentioned is what Peugeot did in Sochaux, France. The department of the bodywork construction, which employed the most revolting workers and which required the cooperation of various groups of experts for its construction, was radically restructured once the automation was introduced. This section was not anymore based on the assembly line, but on some highly specialized workers who had to constantly change position to assemble some parts of the car body, while checking at the same time for possible mistakes. This restructuring, which started in the late ‘70s, broke the previous communities of struggle that had been created, threw the responsibility for mistakes on the workers’ shoulders by reducing the range of possibilities for sabotage, while surveillance of work became easier. metafordism Here we should make a parenthesis. There is a great debate in academic circles about the transition from the large factory units model with assembly lines (ie from Fordist production decades of 1930 until 1970), a model where the small flexible company dominates, which promotes the participation of workers in the production process, transforming their role from simple executive tools into participants in decisions regarding production. The Japanese production model first developed by Toyota, with skilled workers who could interrupt production flow whenever they found defects in the product, and repair on the spot without informing their superiors was considered so innovative that launches a break with the Fordist pattern of multiple hierarchies and scientific organization of labor in the traditional assembly lines. In conjunction with the development of just-in-time production and the change in overall philosophy of con- sumerism which was oriented to the individual person and not for the entire population, the “Toyotism” was supposed to form the core features a new production model that was named Metafordism. The element of greater workers’ participation in production is emphasized in every way in this model, which is supposed to be the main fact of productivity growth. Although there are many different aspects of this theory, all those are trying to accommodate the change in the forms of work that were introduced by the neoliberal form of state, in the logic of this transition. For example, it is considered that flexible specialization which is promoted today by the system is part of this transition. changes in working conditions Talking about the production process, we should rather talk about social relations that have work at their core. Work as a central capitalist value, installed in the eye of the storm of the transformations carried out by the neoliberal state. The Fordist working relations which ensured a relatively stable (with upward trend) income throughout the golden age of the welfare state is being challenged. In the beginning in the most technologically advanced sectors of production the permanency of the job is eliminated, as well as some standard features of the last few decades as the eight-hours-work and the insurance for pension and health. Work becomes flexible, uninsured, kinetic and temporary. “Work” is transformed into what is nowadays called “occupation”. However, the transformations at work do not stop there. The neoliberal regulations destroy most of the old social contracts between capital and labor of the past decades: for example, the working contracts become individualized, in the same company and between workers of the same hierarchical order are observed different levels of wages, salaries, different work schedules etc. The new economy was mainly based on reducing the cost of production and reproduction of labor power: wage and pension cuts, massive layoffs in companies during the process of their “technological” restructuring, cuts in the unemployment and other social benefits, etc. cultural crisis The changes in the social field are consistent with similar changes in the ideological field, which are equally important. Their importance lies in the fact that is not curtailed in the economic field. It has also to do with the cultural crisis, a crisis of production of new meanings from the system, which will replace the old values that have worn. And here is the point that shows the system’s ability to read carefully the culture behind the struggles and to decode and interpret them in order to make the correct conclusions from them and use them to its own advantage. That is why the ideology of the neoliberal state is developed in line with this certain spirit of controversy. fetishism of goods and individualism Consumption, for example, is being individualized. The massive consumer of the Fordist model who enjoyed a minimum of goods, the same with the rest of the population, is considered conformist and obsolete. The modern consumer ideology intensifies fetishism of goods (“your car is the one that fits your character”), enriching the explosion of the subjectivities of the past decades (personal autonomy, the right to diversity), through a process of their degeneration. The good old principles of capitalism about free will and equality of all on the market, got adapted to the new era: “Only the best can progress”, “equality in opportunities for taking initiatives”, etc. The “manager” is constructed based on these ideologies: the modern yuppie working hard for his company, ready at any time to adapt to the new social conditions, investing in social ascension. The protestant work ethic returns in a vampire dress in its rawest form. In the soft underbelly of the ideology of individualism, as on the arguments concerning the “arteriosclerotic” function of the welfare state (centralized, bureaucratic, non-functional), make their feast all the cut policies, or the abolition of all benefits (“why to pay for all the irresponsible who do not work but nevertheless want to eat, etc.”), which was introduced by the welfare state. This is because the neoliberal state privatizes responsibility: the cost must be borne by its citizens. In order for the British government to cut the unemployment benefits, Thatcher had to enlist the entire ideological weapons of neoliberalism, to exacerbate social contradictions within British society and to ally with that part of the petty bourgeoisie, which was scared by the radicalization of the people, because such radicalization would likely undermine the small privileges they were enjoying. But she also had to crush the glorious uprising of the British youth in 1981, and this took place neither with money nor with ideologies. It happened with the recruitment of each mechanism of the legal monopoly of violence the british state had. Similarly, in order to achieve the restructuring of the secondary sector, firstly they had to beat one of the most (traditionally) rebellious part of the industrial working class of Europe and the world: the miners. the new treaty The neoliberal project, both in its extreme form that was applied in the Anglo-Saxon countries, and in the social-liberal form that was applied to other major European countries (France, Germany, now Great Britain, Spain, Greece), tends to be a universal model of social organization in today’s era. It is characterized by a polarization of social contradictions: concentration of wealth in even fewer hands, intensity of social inequality in the western metropolises, massive unemployment rates that in other times would be prohibitive for the functioning of the system, marginalization of the entire social strata (layers). In these conditions the importance of the third sector is magnified as an essential component of the neoliberal form of the state. This area is supposed to occupy a space beyond the state and private initiative, a void space between these two, invested with an important role today. Of central importance to the development of this sector (materially expressed with the non-governmental organizations) is volunteerism, an ideology of participation in political and social life and “offer to other humans”, which radically differs from previous forms of participation in social life. [B] The origin of volunteerism and NGOs M OST INTELLECTUALS SHARE a simplistic view of things when they face the questions of the origin of volunteerism and of the NGOs. On the one side of this perception is the withdrawal of the old form of the welfare state and the redistributive welfare functions of the previous era and the need to bridge the gap created by this withdrawal (thesis of marxists), and on the other side the concept of enhancing citizens’ participation in public decisions, in development policies, in two-three things we know about volunteerism two-three things we know about volunteerism two-three things we know about taking measures for vulnerable people, in the environmental issues, even in foreign politics... (thesis of the neoliberals and social-liberals ). Despite any differences between these two ways of thinking is evident that they both agree, among other things, that the construction of voluntary ideology and of the third sector is top-down. But things are not so simple... and we will try to analyze the problem from a completely different point of view. We believe that it has been understood that the phenomena we analyze we perceive them as processes, being dynamic, in motion, not as static moments or situations. The ‘80s are the era of defeat and retreat for competitive subjects. This, combined with the desperation that drove a big part of the movement to the armed struggle, with the terrible repression that a big part of the competitive movement suffered, with the frustration and futility of the old political structures of the leninist type of political structures and also with the failure of the majority of the political subjects to explain the defeat, these will open new horizons to those political subjects who did not resign completely. If we make an attempt to describe those political subjects we would say that they highlighted the need (a very significant need being part of a competitive movement) that the denial and the doubt of the sovereignty and work should be consisted not only by negative (“freedom from” authority, i.e. sabotage) but also by positive features (“freedom for”, i.e. creating collectives). And that were those who the previous period had already tried to create competitive structures and overcome the strictly Marxist-Leninist type of a political movement. The doubt of the work ethic and representation, together with questions of what the traditional marxistleninist political movement meant, that either let their automatic solution for a post-revolutionary society or was postponed, it led to constructing structures within the context of a political movement as an attempt to overcome a leninist organizational model. The existence of a network of parallel structures within it, directly linked to the movement, added another different layer to the monolithic organization as it unfolded in this reality, one proposal being to resolve issues and problems. Still, it fueled the “social” with political characteristics (for example showing the political importance/aspect of almost any problem), but also the “political” with the social (again indicating for example the political solution that can be given to a problem). However, the structures that in the ‘70s were part of the antagonistic movement, in the ‘80s would become independent and afterwards will seek their participation as “civil society”. alternativism The ‘80s will be the era of alternativism’s bloom and of “freedom’s oases in the desert of capitalism”. A multitude of social structures that had inspired and had built a collective intelligence and imagination of thousands of people, structures that refused mediation of dominant institutions, the logic of profit, continued to grow and expand. Clinical and therapeutic communities (who wanted to overcome the authoritarian nature of the relationship between doctor and patient and the positivism of Western medicine), organizations for the defense of rights (of women, blacks, gays, immigrants, refugees, etc.) and networks of support and solidarity, intervention groups of action for a huge range of issues (from ecological to consumers’ rights), social centers (trying to recreate the community, especially in England), squats (for a radical conception of space and time and against the commercialized use of the habitat), libertarian schools and communes, artistic collectives etc. In addition to the abovementioned, however, the constitution of new collectives has already taken place within the social field with significant change: there was no longer an antagonistic movement. Within this antagonistic movement, all the above were highly important. What remained at the end was the retreat of the antagonistic movement and onslaught of the neoliberal state, in which all of the above acquire another -much different- meaning. assimilation Along with the above change it also happened what is called assimilation. Assimilation is not a process that takes place in some dark circles of intellectuals who get together to discuss what is useful for the development of capitalism. Assimilation is both a passive process of the antagonistic subjects and an active process of the same subjects, and we say this because most often the assimilation is perceived only as a passive process. In short, most often antagonistic subjects are assimilated, either because they are forced or because they are willing to (as they cannot find other solutions, or as they got defeated). In these circumstances of alternativism and assimilation takes place an important juncture. A juncture that happens when all these structures, institutionalizations and subjects therein seek their participation in what is called “civil society”. However, probably the most significant reason remains the inefficacy of their action. Their effectiveness in the ‘70s was the result of the effectiveness of the movement, so the lack of movement means to a degree the lack of effectiveness. Conclusion: the structures of the ‘70s that were part of the antagonist movement, in the ‘80s would become independent, and afterwards will seek their participation in “civil society”, which means a differentiation in character, in orientation, in action, in organizing, which means even more that just a renunciation of their previous antagonist features. examples In 1990 Bush stated: “People are the ones who have their role to make America a better place. It is the student who stays after school to help his classmate. It is the community leader who finds the money to build a station for the care of poor children... It is the volunteer who brings food in the homes of the elderly. And there are a thousand other bright spots for everyone who wants to contribute something. This is the greatness of America. My government’s ambition is to make these bright spots shine more than ever”. Already, since 1983 the issue of volunteering had become central to President Reagan with frequent references that people should take back into their hands what was once thought to be done voluntarily “through the kindness of their heart and a sense of community”. By volunteering, the neoliberal state perceives that there is a reservoir of labor that can be exploited to cover a part of its welfare policy without bearing the cost of this policy. Before closing this section, one last example, which summarizes as such, most of the processes above mentioned. The example is the policy of the Greek State towards immigrants. Until the ‘90s the Greek State had virtually no infrastructure and no immigration policy (for the very simple reason that there was no need). Today, 20 years later, there is an entire network of welfare policy for immigrants. How was this network set up? The whole immigration policy of the Greek State (or at least the immigration policy) is based mostly on the mentioned processes: healthcare is offered by NGOs as “Médecins Sans Frontières” and “Medecins Du Monde”, legal assistance by a leftist group of lawyers, food and clothing is offered by a range of charity organizations, housing by a number of hostels. Thus, the Greek State did something quite clever. It is not paying even an eurocent for immigrants as far as these are covered both by the NGOs and the “informal networks of social care”. so here we are… However, all the above should be found within those appropriate conditions in order to give us the result that we now call NGOs and volunteerism. Suitable conditions have one name: the neoliberal state. The cuts of the benefits and the slogan “citizens should pay the cost” will push and force many “businessmen” of social policy to run find volunteers (“citizens who are interested in the common good”). On the other hand, the ideological transformations that took place in the ‘80s, the serious crisis of the representation (unions, political parties, the crisis in many European communist parties) that created a vacuum in the representation and mediation and the wonderful era of “civil society” will get one to the already defeated requests of the ‘80s and they will transform them into “social participation”, “enrichment of the experience”, “activism”, “international sensitivities” etc. To sum up: volunteerism and NGOs were socio-historically created and are the direct product of social and class antagonism. In this creation process participants are both a part of the defeated antagonist subjects defeated of the ‘60s and ‘70s, and the neoliberal state that understands the value of using this thing. The degree of involvement of one or the other is different depending on the case and the particular characteristics of each society. [C] The use value of volunteering T HE THIRD SECTOR IS CURRENTLY one of the fastest growing sectors among the most advanced capitalist states. For example, only in the U.S., in the early ‘90s there were over 1.4 million non- profit organizations (!), while in England during the same period around 160,000 officially registered organizations. We observed similar expansion trends of the third sector in developing countries where there are registered more than 35,000 organizations out of which 20,000 are active only in Asia. Regarding Greece, the turning point for the development of NGOs was considered the war in Kosovo, when many voluntary organizations have supported the dictatorial regime of Milosevic by directing their humanitarian aid towards those Serbians they ethnically agreed with (i.e. Orthodox Serbs). This initiative of NGOs, not simply limited to humanitarian aid, they took the characteristics of active policy intervention, although to some extent they were supported by the Greek State and the Church. However, this created problems in the relationship between the Greek and the international bosses: especially in the case of Kosovo, some NGOs could be classified as the operational arm of the proSerbian public opinion, and went as far as to enter, in some cases, in conflict with the official foreign policy of “equidistance”. A result of the action developed by the NGOs was the imposition of sanctions on the Greek part of the voluntary organization “Médecins Sans Frontières” for violation of the principles of the organization on impartial assistance to victims of war. The huge importance of the third sector and the ideological role in which is dressed up makes it one of the most fundamental pillars of the policy makers, the nowadays dominant political force. Because volunteering makes the “dirty work” within the neo- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Broșuri secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Two-three things we know about volunteerism (2014) Subject The topic of the resource We will try to analyze volunteerism as a social and historical phenomenon, as a condition that derived as a result of the conflict between antagonistic forces. This way of perceiving things – and we deeply believe that – frees us from a unilateral understanding of the phenomenon, which, as such, is by definition wrong.Keep in mind that our analysis does not purport to be crowned with sociological laurels, which we also dislike. Our aim was – as far as possible – to offer a proletarian reading of the neoliberal form of the state that transformed volunteering in what we know nowadays. 2. How is volunteerism conceptualized nowadays, 3. Who takes advantage from the results of volunteerism. We are definitely not interested in discussing possible solutions or what we “must do” to make our life better with more solidarity and less volunteerism. First of all we must learn to analyze and then to discuss. Description An account of the resource Volunteers? Useful. To whom? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Creiereală Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived https://creiereala.wordpress.com/ Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Creiereală Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource april 2014 Language A language of the resource english Type The nature or genre of the resource broșură Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Cluj, 2014 2014 Cluj-Napoca Creiereală english voluntariat https://anarhiva.com/files/original/6d5912a7e4b3bb3ad538602d83a0d4b7.pdf 172272213806eb4a91dc0840f9bd9a46 PDF Text Text APRILIE 2014 CLUJ-NAPOCA VOLUNTARI? FOLOSITORI. CUI? DOUĂ, TREI LUCRURI DESPRE VOLUNTARIAT V OM INCERCA SĂ ANALIZĂM voluntariatul ca fenomen social și istoric, ca o condiţie derivată a conflictului unor forţe antagonice. Acest mod de a privi lucrurile ne eliberează de o percepţie unilaterală a fenomenului, care este prin definiţie greșită. Analiza noastră nu are pretenţia si nici nu-și dorește să fie încoronată cu laurii exemplului sociologic. Scopul nostru este – în măsura în care este posibil – să oferim o lectură proletară și o înţelegere a formei neoliberale a statului, și cum voluntriatul este structurat într-o prismă ce deschide orizonturile unei confruntări atât critice cât și radicale cu acesta. �două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat S TATUL BUNĂSTĂRII nu este rezultatul unor iniţiative caritabile care să asigure bunul comun, nici un instrument de represiune în mâinile suveranităţii, ci rezultatului unui lung proces legat inextricabil de lupta proletară care a forţat clasa conducătoare să se retragă (pentru a contracara). Referindu-ne la formele de stat, statul bunăstării şi statul neoliberal, trebuie să ţinem minte relaţiile sociale. Aceste relaţii apar din conflictul forţelor antagonice şi exprimă, în fiecare moment, punctul de echilibru dinamic al acestui conflict. Conceptul de stat neoliberal a devenit instituţionalizat ca o expresie a primatului şefilor în lupta lor cu mişcările antagonismelor sociale, în timp ce această expresie ia în considerare şi asimilarea unei mari părţi a criticii radicale a subiecţilor sociali sub forma statului bunăstării contra căruia s-au revoltat în perioada anterioară. Putem vedea transformarea statului bunăstării (prima oară în ţările din blocul vestic) anilor ’60-’70 într-un stat neoliberal, vizibil în această formă din anii ’80-’90 până în ziua de astăzi. În fostul bloc estic această schimbare se întâmplă un pic mai târziu când statele „comuniste” (ca şi stat al bunăstării) se prăbuşesc abrupt. [A] Transformarea tehnologii noi În primul rând, modurile de producţie din lumea vestică sunt reconstruite în jurul polilor automatizării şi ai informaticii. O variaţie semnificantă de ordin statistic a importanţei sectorului terţiar (care a devenit în ultimii treizeci de ani tot mai mare şi mai mare), adică, sectorul serviciilor, comparată cu perioada anterioară, este o parte crucială a acestei dezvoltări. Noile tehnologii (calculatoare, robotică) au devenit din ce în ce mai de valoare, din cauză că acestea funcţionează drept o unealtă pentru o reducere şi mai ridicată a factorului uman din muncă. În două feluri: în primul rând, prin a înlocui munca umană (ceea ce marxiştii numesc reducerea compoziţiei organice a capitalului), în al doilea rând, prin reducerea nivelului de contribuţie a factorului uman în procesul de producţie. Gândiţi-vă, de exemplu, cum schimbarea casierului de la bancă cu o maşină automată de bani ajută (în afară de reducerea costurilor de producţie) la reducerea probabilităţii erorilor în tranzacţiile financiare. mecanizarea muncii Sunt aceleaşi lupte ale muncitorilor sub sloganul „refuzului de a muncii” (precum a fost prezentat în actele de sabotaj prin oprirea producţiei, sau a producerii de părţi stricate, greve, absenteism de la munca de zi cu zi, etc.), forţând capitalul să pună maşinării în locul muncii umane din industrie. Colectivizarea rezistenţei este cea care crează comunităţi de luptă şi solidaritate şi un mediu destul de favorabil pentru crearea după modelul fordist de producţie care trebuie să fie respondată prin transformarea muncii într-un lucru individual, în faţa unui calculator, izolat unul de celălalt. Sau chiar prin forţarea şefilor să transforme planurile de producţie. Un exemplu bun pentru a înţelege cele prezentate mai sus este ce a făcut Peugeot în Sochaux, Franţa. Departamentul de construcţie a caroseriei, care avea drept angajaţi pe cei mai revoltaţi muncitori şi care necesita cooperarea dintre diferite grupuri de experţi, a fost restructurat radical o dată ce automatizarea a fost introdusă. Această secţiune nu a mai fost bazată pe linia de ansamblare, ci pe câţiva muncitori foarte specializaţi care trebuiau să-şi schimbe poziţia constant spre a ansambla unele părţi din caroseria maşinii, în timp ce verificau pentru posibile greşeli. Această restructurare, care a început la finele anilor ’70, a distrus comunităţile de luptă care fuseseră create înainte, a aruncat responsabilitatea greşelilor pe umerii muncitorilor prin reducerea gamei posibilităţii de sabotaj, în timp ce supravegherea muncii era mult mai uşor de făcut. metafordismul Aici ar trebui să facem o paranteză. Există o discuţie mare în rândul cercurilor academice despre tranziţia de la fabrici mari cu linii de ansamblare (ca de exemplu, producţia fordistă a perioadei dintre anii ’30 până în anii ’70), un model în care dominantă este mica companie flexibilă care promovează participarea muncitorilor în procesul de producţie, transformându-le rolul de simple unelte executoare în participanţi la decizii legate de producţie. Modelul de producţie japonez a fost dezvoltat pentru prima dată de către Toyota, cu muncitori calificaţi care puteau întrerupe fluxul de producţie de fiecare dată când găseau defecte în produse, făcând reparaţiile necesare pe loc, fără a-şi informa superiorul, a fost considerat într-atât de inovativ încât a dat drumul unei pauze pentru modelul fordist cu multiple ierarhii şi organizare stiinţifică a muncii în liniile tradiţionale de ansamblare. În legătură cu dezvoltarea producţiei exact-la-timp şi schimbarea filosofiei globale a consumerismului care a fost orientată către persoana individuală şi nu pentru întreaga populaţie, „toyotismul” era presupus să formeze nucleul unui nou model de producţie care a fost numit metafordism. Elementul participării mai ridicate a muncitorului în producţie este subliniat în toate modurile posibile în acest model, care se presupune că este factorul principal privind creşterea productivităţii. În ciuda faptului că există mai multe aspecte în această teorie, toate acestea încearcă să acomodeze schimbarea din formele muncii care au fost introduse de către forma neoliberală a statului, în logica acestei tranziţii. De exemplu, se consideră că specializarea flexibilă care este promovată astăzi de către sistem este parte din tranziţie. schimbările aduse condiţiilor de muncă Dacă e să vorbim despre procesul producţiei, ar fi mai bine să discutăm despre relaţiile sociale care au munca ca şi nucleu. Munca drept valoarea capitalistă centrală, instalată în ochii furtunii transformării efectuate de către statul neoliberal. Relaţiile de muncă fordiste care asigurau un venit relativ stabil (cu o tendinţă de creştere) de-a lungul epocii de aur a statului bunăstării este anulată. La început, în sectoarele de producţie cele mai avansate tehnologic permanenţa muncii este eliminată, precum şi nişte trăsături standard ale ultimelor câteva decade ale muncii de opt ore, precum şi asigurarea pentru pensie şi sănătate. Munca devine flexibilă, neasigurată, cinetică şi temporară. „Munca” este transformată în ceea ce azi numim „ocupaţie”. Cu toate acestea, transformările muncii nu se opresc aici. Regulaţiile neoliberale distrug mare parte din contractele sociale vechi dintre capital şi muncă ale ultimelor decade: de exemplu, �două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat contractele de muncă devin individuale, în aceeaşi companie şi între muncitorii aceleaşi ordini ierarhice se pot observa diferite niveluri salariale, orare de muncă diferite, etc. Această nouă economie a fost bazată în cea mai mare parte pe reducerea costurilor de producţie şi a reproducerii forţei de muncă: tăieri de salar(iu) şi pensie, disponibilizări masive în companii în timpul procesului de restructurare „tehnologică”, tăieri ale beneficiilor de şomaj sau de alt fel, etc. criza culturală Schimbările domeniului social sunt consistent similare cu schimbările din domeniul ideologic, care sunt la fel de importante. Importanţa lor constă în faptul că nu sunt reduse în domeniul eonomic. Are de a face, de asemenea, cu criza culturală, o criză a producţiei de noi înţelesuri de la sistem, care vor înlocui valorile vechi care s-au uzat. Şi aici e punctul care prezintă abilitatea sistemului de a citi cu atenţie cultura din spatele luptelor şi cauzelor şi de a le decoda şi interpreta cu scopul de a ajunge la concluzia corectă în privinţa lor şi de a le folosi în propriul său avantaj. De aceea ideologia statului neoliberal este dezvoltat în linie cu diferite spirite ale controversei. – TATĂ, CARE ESTE DIFERENŢA DINTRE UN VOLUNTAR ŞI UN REVOLUTIONAR? AMBII REALIZEAZĂ INJUSTIŢIILE DIN LUME ŞI AMBII AU AMABILITATE ŞI IUBIRE ÎN SUFLETE. fetişizarea mărfurilor şi individualismul Consumul, de exemplu, este individualizat. Consumatorul masiv al modelului fordist care se bucura de un minimum de bunuri, la fel şi cu restul populaţiei, este considerat conformist şi învechit. Ideologia consumatorului modern intensifică fetişizarea mărfurilor („maşina ta este cea care se potriveşte cel mai bine caracterului tău”), îmbogăţind explozia subiectivităţilor decadelor trecute (autonomie personală, dreptul la diversitate), printr-un proces al propriei lor degenerări. Vechile principii ale capitalismului privind liberul arbitru şi egalitatea tuturor pe piaţă s-au adaptat la noua eră: „Doar cel mai bun progresează”, „egalitatea în oportunităţile privind luarea de iniţiativă”, etc. „Managerul” este construit pe baza acestor ideologii: carieristul modern muncind din greu pentru compania sa, pregătit oricând să se adapteze la noile condiţii sociale, investind în ascensiunea sa socială. Etica protestantă privind munca se întoarce într-o haină vampirică în cel mai brut mod. În zona moale de sub burtă a ideologiei individualismului, drept argument privind funcţia „arteriosclerotică” a statului bunăstării (centralizat, birocratic, non-funcţional), fac un festin de pe seama politicilor – VOLUNTARII SERVESC IDEOLOGIA RĂBDĂRII ŞI A CÂŞTIGURILOR PERSONALE INTANGIBILE PRIVIND UN CV MAI BOGAT PRIN REDRESAREA RĂNILOR (CAPITALISMULUI BRUT) ŞI FĂCÂND DUREREA SĂ FIE MAI SUPORTABILĂ. PROBABIL ÎNCERCÂND SĂ ÎNCHIDĂ NIŞTE GĂURI ALE VINEI MORALE. REVOLUŢIONARII SUNT DORNICI SĂ DISTRUGĂ CAUZELE REALE ALE PROBLEMELOR FĂRĂ SĂ LE PESE DACĂ EL SAU EA VOR MAI FI ÎN VIAŢĂ CA SĂ CULEAGĂ BENEFICIILE LUPTEI LUI SAU EI, FĂRĂ SĂ INTENŢIONEZE A AVEA UN SUCCESS PERSONAL. de tăiere, sau abolirea tuturor beneficiilor („de ce să plăteşti pentru toţi iresponsabilii care nu lucrează dar vor să mănânce, etc.”), care au fost introduse de statul bunăstării. Toate acestea din cauză că statul neoliberal privatizează responsabilitatea: costul trebuie să fie suportat de către cetăţeni. Pentru ca guvernul britanic să taie beneficiile de şomaj, Thatcher a trebuit să înroleze toate armele ideologice ale neoliberalismului, spre a agrava contradicţiile sociale din cadrul societăţii britanice şi spre a se alia cu acea parte a micii burghezii care era speriată de radicalizarea oamenilor, din cauză că astfel de radicalizări ar submina micile privilegii de care se bucură aceştia. Dar ea a trebuit să zdrobească revolta glorioasă a tinerilor britanici din 1981, iar asta s-a întâmplat fără bani şi fără ideologie. A fost zdobită prin recrutarea fiecărui mecanism al monopolului legal pe violenţă pe care-l avea statul britanic. În mod similar, spre a realiza restructurarea celui de-al doilea sector, prima oară trebuia să învingă una din cele mai rebele (în mod tradiţional) părţi ale clasei muncitoare industriale ale Europei şi lumii: minerii. noul tratat Proiectul neoliberal, atât în formele sale extreme care au fost aplicate în ţările anglo-saxone, şi sub forma social-liberală care a fost aplicată în majoritatea celorlalte ţări europene (Franţa, Germania, acuma şi Marea Britanie, Spania, Grecia), tinde să fie un model universal al organizării sociale în era actuală. Este caracterizată printr-o polarizare a contradicţiilor sociale: concentrarea de bogăţii în tot mai puţine mâini, intensitatea inegalităţilor sociale în metropolele occidentale, rate masive ale şomajului care, în alte vremuri, ar fi prohibitive pentru funcţionarea sistemului, marginalizarea întregului strat social. În aceste condiţii, importanţa sectorului terţiar este mărită ca fiind o componentă esenţială a statului neoliberal. Această zonă ar trebui să ocupe un spaţiu dincolo de stat şi iniţiative private, un gol între aceste două, azi investită cu un rol important. De o importanţă centrală pentru dezvoltarea acestui sector (exprimată în mod material prin organizaţiile non-guvernamentale) este voluntariatul, o ideologie a pariticipării în viaţa politică şi socială şi „a oferi altor oameni”, ceea ce diferă în mod radical de formele anterioare de participare la viaţa socială. �două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat [Β] Originile voluntariatului şi ale ONG-urilor M AJORITATEA INTELECTUALILOR împărtășesc o viziune simplistă a lucrurilor când se confruntă cu întrebările privind originile voluntariatului şi ale ONG-urilor. Pe de o parte a acestei percepţii este retragerea formelor vechi ale statului bunăstării şi redistribuirea funcţiilor de bunăstare ale fostei ere şi nevoia de a astupa gaura creată de către această retragere (teza marxistă), şi, pe de altă parte, conceptul consolidării participării cetăţeneşti la deciziile publice, la politicile de dezvoltare, privind măsuri pentru oameni vulnerabili, probleme de mediu, chiar şi privind politici externe... (teză a neoliberalilor şi a social-liberalilor). În ciuda diferenţelor dintre aceste două moduri de a gândi este evident că ambele sunt de acord, printre alte lucruri, că construcţia ideologiei de voluntariat şi a sectorului terţiar este de sus în jos. Dar lucrurile nu sunt aşa de simple... şi vom încerca să analizăm problema dintr-un punct de vedere complet diferit. Noi credem că a fost înţeles faptul că fenomentul pe care-l analizăm îl percepem ca pe un proces, fiind dinamic, în mişcare, nu drept momente sau situaţii statice. Anii ’80 reprezintă era înfrângerii şi a retragerii subiecţilor contestatari. Aceasta, combinată cu disperarea care a condus o mare parte din mişcare la luptă armată, cu represiunea teribilă pe care a suferit-o o mare parte din mişcarea contestatară, cu frustrarea şi inutilitatea structurilor politice vechi ale modelului leninist şi, de asemenea, eşecul majorităţii subiecţilor politici care să explice înfrângerea, toate acestea vor deschide noi orizonturi acelor subiecţi politici care nu s-au dat bătuţi în totalitate. Dacă încercăm să descriem acei subiecţi politici am spune că aceştia au subliniat nevoia (o nevoie semnificativă de a fi parte din mişcarea contestatară) că nega- rea şi dubiul suveranităţii şi al muncii ar trebui să fie considerate nu doar negative („libertate de la” autoritate, adică, sabotaj) dar şi trăsături pozitive („libertate pentru”, adică, crearea de colective). Şi că aceştia au fost cei care în perioada anterioară au încercat deja să creeze structuri competitive şi au învins tipul unei mişcări politice marxist-leniniste stricte. Îndoiala muncii etice şi a reprezentării acesteia, alături de întrebările privind ce a însemnat mişcarea politică marxist-leninistă tradiţională, care fie a dus la soluţia automată pentru o societate post-revoluţionară sau a fost amânată, a dus la construirea de structuri în interiorul contextului unei mişcări politice ca o tentativă de a învinge modelul organizaţional leninist. Existenţa unei reţele de structuri paralele aflate în cadrul acesteia, legate direct de mişcare, a adăugat un strat diferit la organizaţia monolitică în timp ce se dezvăluia în această realitate, una dintre propuneri fiind aceea de a rezolva probleme. Totuşi, a alimentat „socialul” cu caracteristici politice (de exemplu, arătând importanţa/aspectul politic al aproape tuturor problemelor), dar şi „politicul” cu social (din nou, indicând, de exemplu, soluţia politică care poate fi oferită unei probleme). În orice caz, structurile care în anii ’70 erau parte din mişcarea antagonică, în anii ’80 va deveni independentă şi ulterior va căuta participarea ca „societate civilă”. alternativism Anii ’80 vor fi epoca de înflorire a alternativismului şi a „oazelor de libertate în deşertul capitalismului”. O multitudine de structuri sociale care au inspirat şi au construit o inteligenţă şi imaginaţie colectivă de mii de oameni, structuri care au refuzat medierea instituţiilor dominante, logica profitului, au continuat să crească şi să se extindă. Comunităţile clinice şi terapeutice (care au dorit să învingă natura autoritariană a relaţiilor dintre doctor şi pacient şi pozitivismul medicinei occidentale), organizaţii pentru apărarea drepturilor (femeilor, oamenilor de culoare, homosexualilor, imigranţilor, refugiaţilor, etc.) şi reţele de susţinere şi solidaritate, grupuri de intervenţie pentru acţiune pentru o largă varietate de probleme (de la ecologie la dreptul consumatorului), centre socia- le (încercând să se recreeze comunitatea, mai ales în Anglia), squat-uri (pentru concepţii radicale privind spaţiul şi timpul şi împotriva comercializării uzului habitatului), şcoli şi comune libertariene, colective artistice, etc. Cu toate acestea, totuşi, constituirea de noi colective a avut deja loc în cadrul domeniului social cu schimbări semnificative: nu mai exista o mişcare antagonistă. În cadrul acestei mişcări antagoniste, toate cele de mai sus erau foarte importante. Ce mai rămânea în cele din urmă era retragerea mişării antagoniste şi atacul statului neoliberal, în care toate cele de mai sus dobândeau un alt înţeles – foarte diferit. asimilarea Alături de schimbările prezentate mai sus, s-a mai întâmplat ceva numit asimilare. Asimilarea nu este un proces care se petrece în cercuri întunecate de intelectuali care se adună ca să discute ce este de folos pentru evoluţia capitalismului. Asimilarea este atât un proces pasiv al subiectului antagonic cât şi un proces activ al aceluiaşi subiect, şi, noi spunem asta din cauză că de cele mai multe ori asimilarea este percepută drept un proces pasiv. Pe scurt, cel mai adesea, subiecţii antagonici sunt asimilaţi, fie din cauză că sunt forţaţi sau din cauză că sunt dispuşi (din cauză că nu pot găsi alte soluţii, sau au fost înfrânţi). În aceste circumstanţe ale alternativităţii şi asimilării se petrece un moment important. Un moment care se întâmplă când toate aceste structuri, instituţionalizări şi subiecţi caută în această privinţă propria lor participare în ceea ce este numită drept „societate civilă”. În orice caz, probabil că cel mai important motiv rămâne ineficienţa acţiunilor lor. Eficacitatea în anii ’70 a fost rezultatul eficienţei mişcării, aşa încât lipsa mişcării înseamnă întro anume măsură lipsa eficienţei. Concluzie: structurile anilor ’70 care au fost parte din mişcarea antagonică, în anii ’80 devin independente, şi, ulterior, vor căuta participarea la „societatea civilă”, care înseamnă o diferenţiere în caracter, în orientare, în acţiune, în organizare, ceea ce înseamnă ceva mai mult decât o renunţare la trăsăturile antagonice anterioare. �două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat exemple În 1990, Bush a spus: „Oamenii sunt cei care au rolul de a face din America un loc mai bun. Este studentul cel care stă după şcoală ca să-şi ajute colegul. Este liderul comunităţii cel care găseşte bani pentru a construi un centru pentru îngrijirea copiilor săraci... este voluntarul cel care aduce hrană în casele celor bătrâni. Şi mai sunt alte mii de buline luminoase pentru fiecare care doreşte să constribuie cu ceva. Aceasta este măreţia Americii. Ambiţia guvernului meu este aceea de a face ca bulinele luminoase să lumineze mai puternic ca niciodată.” Deja, din 1983 problema voluntariatul a devenit o chestiune centrală pentru preşedintele Reagan care făcea referiri frecvente referitoare la faptul că oamenii ar trebui să ia în propriile mâini din nou ceea ce cândva se făcea în mod voluntar datorită „bunătăţii şi sensului comunităţii”. Prin voluntariat, statul neoliberal percepe faptul că există un rezervor de muncă care poate fi exploatat spre a acoperi o parte din politicile de bunăstare fără a simţi costurile acetor politici. Înainte de a încheia această secţiune, un ultim exemplu, care sumarizează pe cât posibil, majoritatea proceselor mai sus amintite. Exemplul este politica statului elen privind imigranţii. Până în anii DECI, PĂI, ONG-URILOR INTERESATE, FAC O DOMNULE MUNCĂ EXCEPŢIONALĂ. VOLUNTARII AU PREŞEDINTE, CE GRIJĂ DE CEI SĂRACI ŞI FĂRĂ ADĂPOST AVEŢI DE GÂND (OFERINDU-LE HRANĂ ŞI ÎMBRĂCĂMINTE SĂ FACEŢI DIN CÂND ÎN CÂND), OFERĂ TRAININGURI ÎN PRIVINŢA IEFTINE SAU CHIAR GRATUITE SPRE A ECONOMIEI EDUCA MUNCITORII SĂ FIE ADAPTAŢI LA NAŢIONALE? NOILE CONDIŢII DE PRECARIAT ÎN COM- AVEM CELE MAI PANIILE MULTINAŢIONALE, COLECTEAZĂ MICI SALARII BANI PENTRU CAUZE LUCREAZĂ PRO DIN UNIUNEA BONO ÎN FOARTE MULTE EVENIMENTE EUROPEANĂ. CULTURALE. ŞI, DESIGUR, TOATE ACES- OAMENII NU TEA SUNT POSIBILE NU DIN CAUZĂ CĂ POT TRĂI CU I-AM AJUTA NOI CU CEVA, CI DIN CAUZA 700 DE LEI PE UNOR OAMENI SIMPLI CĂRORA LE PASĂ LUNĂ. ŞI CARE-ŞI OFERĂ BANII ŞI TIMPUL LIBER. ’90 statul grec nu avea niciun pic de infrastructură şi nicio politică privind imigraţia (din simplul motiv că nu era nevoie de aşa ceva). Astăzi, 20 de ani mai târziu, există o reţea întreagă de politci ale bunăstării pentru imigranţi. Cum a fost creată această reţea? Întreaga politică privind imigraţia este bazată în cea mai mare parte pe procesele deja menţionate: ajutorul de sănătate este oferit de ONGuri precum „Medici Fără Frontiere” sau „Medici ai Lumii”, asistenţa legală este oferită de grupuri de avocaţi de stânga, hrana şi îmbrăcămintea este oferită de o largă varietate de organizaţii de caritate, locuinţe de un număr de hosteluri. Astfel, statul grec a făcut ceva chiar deştept. Nu plăteşte nici măcar un euro cent pentru imigranţi atâta vreme cât aceştia sunt acoperiţi de către ONG-uri şi de către „reţelele informale de ajutor social”. şi iată-ne ajunşi aici... Cu toate acestea, toate cele anterior menţionate ar trebui să fie găsite printre condiţiile acelea adecvate cu scopul de a ne oferi rezultatele pe care acuma le numim ONG-uri sau voluntariat. Condiţiile adecvate au un singur nume: statul neoliberal. Reducerile beneficilor şi sloganul „cetăţenii trebuie să plătească costurile” vor împinge şi forţa mulţi „oameni de afaceri” ai politicilor sociale să caute voluntari („cetăţeni care au un interes în bunul comun”). Pe de altă parte, transformarea ideologică care a avut loc în anii ’80, criza serioasă a reprezentării (sindicate, partide politice, criza din multe partide comuniste europene) care a creat un gol în reprezentare şi mediaţie şi epoca minunată a „societăţii civile” vor ajunge la una din cererile deja învinse ale anilor ’80, şi le vor transforma în „participări sociale”, „îmbogăţire a experienţei”, „activism”, „sensibilităţi internaţionale”, etc. Ca să rezumăm: voluntariatul şi ONG-urile au fost create socio-istoric şi sunt produsul direct al antagonismului social şi de clasă. În acest proces de creaţie participanţi sunt atât parte din subiecţilor antagonici învinşi ai anilor ’60 şi ’70, cât şi statul neoliberal care înţelege valoarea folosirii acestui lucru. Gradul de implicare a unuia sau a celuilalt este diferit depinzând de caz şi de caracterisiticile particulare ale fiecărei societăţi. �două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat [C] Valoarea de utilizare a voluntariatului S ECTORUL TERŢIAR este una din cele mai rapid crescătoare sectoare dintre cele mai avansate state capitaliste. De exemplu, numai în Statele Unite, la începutul anilor ’90 erau peste 1.4 milioane de organizaţii non-profit (!), în timp ce în Anglia, în aceeaşi perioadă, aproape 160.000 de organizaţii înregistrate orificial. Observăm tendinţe expansioniste similare ale sectorului terţiar în ţări în curs de dezvoltare unde erau înregistrate mai mult de 35.000 de organizaţii, din care doar 20.000 sunt în Asia. Privind Grecia, momentul de cotitură pentru dezvoltarea ONG-urilor a fost considerat a fi războiul din Kosovo, când multe organizaţii de voluntari au susţinut regimul dictatorial al lui Milosevic prin trimiterea directă de ajutoare umanitare etnicilor sârbi cu care rezonau (adică sârbilor ortodocşi). Această iniţiativă a ONG-urilor nu doar că era limitată la ajutor umanitarian, dar au avut şi caracteristici intervenţioniste pe tema politicilor, în ciuda faptului că la un anumit nivel erau susţinute de statul grec şi de biserică. Totuşi, asta a creat probleme în relaţiile dintre greci şi şefii internaţionali: în special în cazul Kosovo, unele ONG-uri puteau fi clasificate ca fiind braţele operaţionale ale opiniei publice pro-sârbeşti, şi au mers atât de departe încât, în unele situaţii, au intrat în conflict cu politica externă oficială a „echidistanţei”. Un rezultat al acţiunilor dezvoltate de către ONG-uri a fost impunerea unor sancţiuni părţii greceşti a organizaţiei de voluntariat „Medici Fără Frontiere” pentru că violase principiile organizaţiei privind asistarea imparţială a victimelor de război. Importanţa masivă a sectorului terţiar şi a rolului ideologic în care este acesta îmbrăcat face din aceasta una din pilonii fundamentali ai factorilor de decizie politică, forţa dominantă de astăzi. Din cauză că voluntariatul face „munca murdară” în cadrul neoliberal, asumându-şi costurile sociale (materiale sau ideologice) ale acţiunilor de care statul neoliberal şi capitalul privat vor să scape, a devenit doar un mediu cu o valoare de folosire foarte ridicată în mâinile şefilor din ziua de azi. Folosirea ONG-urilor şi a voluntariatului are ca scop final impunerea păcii sociale şi a coeziunii sociale mainstream aşa încât şefii să fie capabili să obţină consensul social chiar şi în perioade de ascuţire a războiului social. În mod particular, putem spune că valoarea folosirii voluntariatului este: [1] muncă neremunerată În primul şi în primul rând înseamnă muncă neplătită. Munca voluntară este o relaţie de muncă mai mult sau mai puţin liberă care nu caută să schimbe sau să aibe un efect direct. Şefii şi statul neoliberal beneficiază de miile de ore de muncă voluntară la care contribuie mii de cetăţeni doritori. Munca gratuită include o varietate de servicii efectuate de subiecţi în sine în mod voluntar, fără a aştepta vreun schimb material de orice fel. Exemple de astfel de munci neplătite sunt multe: de la asistenţă în hosteluri şi în centre de reabilitare a consumatorilor de droguri, la participarea la acţiuni ale organizaţiilor de mediu, iniţiative anti-rasiste, iniţiative pentru protecţia consumatorului, etc. Mai mult, chiar şi companiile private au început să folosească munca voluntară pentru a-şi atinge scopurile în perioade de volum mare de cerere (!). Destul de des, statul neoliberal oferă renunţarea la taxe şi dă fonduri ONGurilor în schimbul muncii prestate. Asta permite şefilor să gestioneze surplusul de populaţie, care, din cauza destabilizării pieţei muncii, este şomeră. Consecinţele de bază ale acestei strategii este managementul şomerilor. Exemple de astfel de participări voluntare în programe sunt deseori adăugate la CV şi permit, teoretic, participanţilor să-şi găsească, ulterior, un loc de muncă pe piaţa muncii. [2] acoperirea slăbiciunilor statului neoliberal Statul neoliberal poate să acopere prezenţa deficitară a statului sau chiar absenţa totală a acestuia, exemple de astfel de forme de substituire a guvernării funcţionează cu munca voluntară a dependenţilor de droguri, a oamenilor fără adăpost, a prizonierilor, etc sau a multor asistenţi sociali, psihologi sau sociologi. Astfel, ia locul restaurării coeziunii sociale „FRACTURATE” cauzate de colapsul politicilor bunăstării.Transformarea descrisă la începutul textului a dus la o reconfigurare a solidarităţii sociale. Creşterea şomaşului şi a individualismului au dus la marginalizarea şi la ghettoizarea unei mari porţiuni a populaţiei. În acest moment voluntariatul intervine ca să umple „găurile” create de colapsul statului bunăstării. Voluntariatul este metoda prin care se absorb vibraţiile atacului neoliberal şi ajută la netezirea integrării celor marginalizaţi şi deposedaţi de către statul neo-liberal nedrept. Un exemplu de astfel de practici voluntare, cunoscut drept „veri anti-revoluţionare”, implementate în Franţa de la finele anilor ’80, după apariţia grupurilor de tineri semi-legale şi „transgresive” care aveau rolul de a reintegra tinerii marginalizaţi prin a-i pune să facă serviciu în folosul comunităţii în acţiuni caritabile. [3] supliment al politicilor de stat Voluntariatul este promovarea şi mainstreamizarea ideologiei şi a practicii voluntarului ca fiind o componentă subsidiară a politicilor guvernamentale. De exemplu, angajamentul a aşa de multe companii militare cu statul American în Iraq, companii care fie au un rol în pregătirea populaţiei locale în practici contemporane de securitate şi război, sau îşi asumă custodia şi siguranţa unor ţinte militare, confirmă colaborarea voluntariatului cu politicile externe de stat. Capitalul privat recunoscând semnele timpurilor lucioase ale activităţilor sale (care au un caracter militar în acest caz), întotdeauna cu acelaşi scop (de a face afaceri ca de obicei), este în concordanţă cu braţul militar al statului. Mai simplu, vorbim mai mult despre folosirea acestor umbrele sociale (sau o etichetă socială mai bună, „voluntariat”) dinspre capitalul militar privat şi statul american, cu scopul de a extrage consensul social necesar, mai degrabă decât aplicarea unei practici şi ideologii de voluntariat. �două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat [4] mascarea cauzelor reale Logica practicilor voluntare nu recunoaşte problemele ca fiind politice, ci mai degrabă ca fiind probleme ale „management”-ului crizei sistemului actual sau chiar ca „eşecuri” ale planificării guvernamentale sau „scăpări” ale opţiunilor „ultra-liberale”. De aceea strategia celor mai multe ONG-uri este să propună „soluţii” la problemele sociale sub forma consultanţei tehnice la nivel instituţionalizat, acesta permiţând statului neoliberal să prezinte voluntariatul ca o metodă de abordare activă a „problemelor sociale”. Ideologia voluntariatului camuflează orice legătură dintre aceste probleme şi altele mai mari, negând chiar existenţa relaţiilor capitaliste şi a capitalismului ca relaţie. Această ideologie re-politizează grupurile cele mai vulnerabile din punct de vedere social şi munca lor transformată în bun comun, astfel încât practica voluntariatului rămâne captivă logicii oferitului, prezentând-o ca pe singura opţiune la cerinţele colective şi a dezvoltării luptelor antagonice. AM GĂSIT UN MOD SIMPLU DE A-MI ÎMBOGĂŢI CV-UL AM GĂSIT UN MOD SIMPLU DE A FACE MAI MULT PROFIT. ÎMI PASĂ CU ADEVĂRAT DE CEI SĂRACI ŞI NEVOIAŞI NU MAI TREBUIE SĂ PLĂTESC PENTRU AJUTOR MEDICAL ŞI SOCIAL. CUNOSC OAMENI NOI ŞI INTERESANŢI ŞI AM OCAZIA DE A CĂLĂTORI CU O MOMEALĂ DE 1-2 BILETE GRATIS, ADICĂ, NICIUN COST, AM MULT MAI MULT PROFIT ŞI CELE MAI BUNE CREIERE ÎN SERVICIUL MEU. ÎMI PETREC TIMPUL LIBER AJUTÂND ŞI ÎNVĂŢÂND ÎMI FAC PRACTICA DE LA FACULTATE LA UN ONG ÎNTR-UN MOD ALTERNATIV SIMT CĂ SUNT PARTE DINTR-O COMUNITATE PROFIT, PROFIT, PROFIT. STUDENŢII ÎNVAŢĂ CUM SĂ FIE RĂBDĂTORI ŞI SĂ-ŞI OFERE SERVICIILE ŞI NU CUM SĂ-ŞI CEARĂ DREPTURILE. ESTE O COMUNITATE DE OAMENI PRODUCTIVI ÎN SERVICIUL MEU. [5] deconectarea problemelor de cauză şi iluzia apoliticului Practica voluntariatului nu este asociată doar carităţii deoarece scopul său nu este să ofere milă sau să ușureze durerea, ci să influenţeze și să facă parte activ din procesul de luare a deciziilor. Voluntariatul oferă deci, pe lângă sentimentul de apartenenţă la un grup și o identitate participanţilor, și posibilitatea intervenţiei în probleme individuale. Acţiunea directă e afișată de către mulţi voluntari ca răspuns la inerţie, la individualismul vieţii consumeriste și la valorile materialiste ale economiei de piaţă. Cu toate astea, principala ideologie din spatele voluntariatului este cea burghezdemocrată a participării la probleme sociale. Spre deosebire de căutările metafizice de genul spiritualităţii lăuntrice, introspecţiei și alte astfel de alte practici individualiste care sunt propuse de sistem ca refugiu în faţa oricărei forme de auto-învinovăţire, voluntariatul permite participarea activă atât a grupurilor de presiune cât și a abordărilor activiste, cu rol de exonerare pe baza îndeplinirii unei datorii sociale. Aici descoperim cea mai apolitică perspectivă asupra ideologiei activiste care motivează oamenii pe baza identificării emoţionale și a logicii maniheiste (politicienii „răi”, multinaţionalele „malefice”, oamenii „creduli dar buni”, etc.) care nu face altceva decât să camufleze și mai mult relaţiile de dominare și exploatare, în același timp golindu-le de orice orientare politică. Rămânând miopatic legată de abordarea părţilor din problemă în locul întregului, această ideologie încearcă să facă legătura între cauză și efect direct, fie prin lobby-ul pe lângă instituţii „răufăcătoare” și companii „periculoase”, fie prin folosirea unor căi legale (simple litigii judiciare, nu lupte). Aceste practici reproduc impresia deluzorie că soluţia este în primul și în primul rând implementarea și conformarea cu anumite reguli, chiar legi. Spre exemplu, „problemele de mediu” sunt de obicei puse sub umbrela „ecologiei”, fără vreo referire la dimensiunile politice și sociale mai largi, apoi li se dă forma implementării Protocolului Kyoto sau a folosirii unei tehnologii curate „alternative”, sau chiar iau forma unei probleme individuale (de ex. folosirea bicicletei în locul mașinii ca mijloc de transport). Practici care să ajute sistemul să depășească probleme pe care el însuși le-a creat. �două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat două-trei lucruri despre voluntariat [6] diviziuni noi, mai mult conservatorism Logica acţiunii directe, o componentă cheie a practicilor și ideologiei voluntariatului, atribuie un rol special participanţilor înșiși, și anume rolul de „voluntar”, adică cel mai avansat membru al societăţii, apărătorul drepturilor umane (liberale) și purtătorul celor mai progresiste idei și concepte. Concept ce nu face altceva decât să traseze noi diviziuni la nivel de acţiune: separare între cei care formează avangarda acţiunii directe și a luării de noi iniţiative și aceia care se presupune că sunt partea pasivă a societăţii. Fără îndoială, percepţia rolului specific al voluntarului în societate întărește conservatorismul și prezervă pasivitatea prin crearea iluziei că pentru fiecare problemă există un spe- cialist gata să-și ofere ajutorul, în timp ce restul lumii își poate continua liniștit viaţa. Simbolicul și spectaculosul acţiunilor multor voluntari ce-și doresc ca mesajul lor să fie auzit de către societate reproduce – cu toate că nu asta este intenţia lor – tocmai această percepţie, ducând la forme de acţiune clasificate ca sacrificare de sine și altruism, dar promovează și responsabilitate și consecvenţă deoarece scopurile pentru care luptă sunt complet separate de restul activităţilor lor zilnice. Semnificaţia ideologică a acestui fapt este înţeleasă foarte bine și exploatată de către șefii de astăzi, care se îngrămădesc să culeagă roadele muncii voluntarilor, prezentându-i ca pe niște „eroi”. Această aură eroică este cea care dă atractivitate voluntariatului în minţile celor din clasa de mijloc și a micilor burghezi, pe lângă încă un rând de trecut în CV-ul lor. Epilog A M ÎNCERCAT SĂ ANALIZĂM voluntariatul ca fiind un fenomen social şi istoric, ca fiind o condiţie derivată a conflictului unor forţe antagonice. Scopul nostru este – pe cât posibil – de a discuta dintr-un punct de vedere proletar (şi nu unul academic) despre:  Felul în care statul neoliberal a transformat voluntariatul în ceea ce este acuma;  Cum se traduce conceptul voluntariatului astăzi  Cine are de câştigat de pe urma voluntariatului. Cu certitudine nu suntem interesaţi să discutăm despre posibile soluţii sau ce „trebuie să facem” ca să ne fie viaţa mai bună, cu mai multă solidaritate şi mai puţin voluntariat, ci în primul rând, trebuie să învăţăm să analizăm şi apoi să discutăm. ...şi multe mulţumiri lui Cami BAZAT PE UN TEXT DIN REVISTA „CUTIA” (TΟ ΚΙΒΏΤΙΟ), NUMĂRUL 3, IUNIE 2005, GRECIA � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Broșuri secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Două, trei lucruri despre voluntariat (2014) Subject The topic of the resource Am încercat să analizăm voluntariatul ca fiind un fenomen social şi istoric, ca fiind o condiţie derivată a conflictului unor forţe antagonice. Scopul nostru este – pe cât posibil – de a discuta dintr-un punct de vedere proletar (şi nu unul academic) despre: 1. Felul în care statul neoliberal a transformat voluntariatul în ceea ce este acuma; 2. Cum se traduce conceptul voluntariatului astăzi; 3. Cine are de câştigat de pe urma voluntariatului? Cu certitudine nu suntem interesaţi să discutăm despre posibile soluţii sau ce „trebuie să facem” ca să ne fie viaţa mai bună, cu mai multă solidaritate şi mai puţin voluntariat, ci în primul rând, trebuie să învăţăm să analizăm şi apoi să discutăm. Description An account of the resource Voluntari? Folositori. Cui? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Creiereală Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived https://creiereala.wordpress.com/suplimente/voluntariat/ Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Creiereală Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource aprilie 2014 Language A language of the resource română Type The nature or genre of the resource broșură Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Cluj, 2014 2014 Cluj-Napoca Creiereală voluntariat https://anarhiva.com/files/original/0d71cf217542240cc135ef38aa1068b8.pdf 90af501f76c5b91736194dcc74917455 PDF Text Text ΑΠΡΙΛΙΟΣ 2014 ΚΛΟΥΖ-ΝΑΠΟΚΑ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΕΣ; ΧΡΗΣΙΜΟΙ. ΣΕ ΠΟΙΟΝ; Βα μ σισ ο έν ικ ιοδ ρ ε οπ στ βώ Κι ο Τ ό« εύ ,Τ » τιο χο ύν , Ιο 3 0 ς# ιο 5 00 2 ς 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ Θ Α ΠΡΟΣΠΑΘΉΣΟΥΜΕ να αναλύσουμε τον εθελοντισμό, σαν φαινόμενο κοινωνικό και ιστορικό. Σαν μια συνθήκη δηλαδή, που προέκυψε ως προϊόν της σύγκρουσης ανταγωνιστικών δυνάμεων. Αυτός ο τρόπος αντίληψης των πραγμάτων - έχουμε την βαθιά πεποίθηση ότι - μας απαλλάσσει από την μονομερή αντίληψη του φαινομένου, που σαν τέτοια είναι εξορισμού λανθασμένη. Να υπενθυμίσουμε ότι η ανάλυση μας δεν φιλοδοξεί να στεφανωθεί με κοινωνιο- λογικές δάφνες, τις οποίες άλλωστε σιχαινόμαστε. Στόχος μας εξαρχής είναι - στο μέτρο του δυνατού - μία από τα κάτω ανάγνωση και κατανόηση της νεοφιλελεύθερης μορφής κράτος και του τρόπου με τον οποίο αρθρώνεται ο εθελοντισμός με αυτήν, υπό ένα πρίσμα που θα ανοίγει ταυτόχρονα τους ορίζοντες για μια κριτική και ριζική αντιπαράθεση μαζί της.   Το κράτος-πρόνοιας δεν ήταν ούτε το αποτέλεσμα κάποιων φιλανθρωπικών πρωτοβουλιών με σκοπό τη διασφάλιση του κοινού καλού, ούτε όμως απλά και μόνο ένα εργαλείο καταστολής στα χέρια των κυρίαρχων, αλλά αποτελεί το αποτέλεσμα μιας μακράς διαδικασίας που είναι αδιάσπαστα συνδεδεμένη με τους εργατικούς αγώνες, οι οποίοι ήταν και αυτοί που ανάγκασαν την άρχουσα τάξη να υποχωρήσει, προκειμένου να αναδιπλωθεί. �2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ Α ΝΑΦΕΡΌΜΕΝΟΙ ΤΌΣΟ ΣΤΗ ΜΟΡΦΉ κράτος-πρόνοιας, όσο και στην μορφή νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος έχουμε στο μυαλό μας κοινωνικές σχέσεις. Σχέσεις που προκύπτουν μέσα από την σύγκρουση τάξεων και που είναι έκφραση κάθε στιγμή του σημείου δυναμικής ισορροπίας αυτής της σύγκρουσης. Μ’ αυτή την έννοια η νεοφιλελεύθερη μορφή κράτος θεσμίζεται σαν η έκφραση της υπεροχής της αφεντικών στην σύγκρουση τους με τα κινήματα του κοινωνικού ανταγωνισμού, ωστόσο η έκφραση αυτή λαμβάνει υπόψη και την αφομοίωση ενός μεγάλου μέρους της ριζοσπαστικής κριτικής που άσκησαν τα κοινωνικά υποκείμενα της άρνησης στην μορφή κράτοςπρόνοιας, εναντίον της οποίας εξεγέρθηκαν το προηγούμενο διάστημα. Από το κράτος πρόνοιας (στις χώρες του δυτικού μπλοκ) των δεκαετιών ‘60-’70 περνάμε στη μορφή νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος των δεκαετιών ‘80-’90 (μέχρι και σήμερα). Αντίστοιχα στις χώρες του πρώην ανατολικού μπλοκ η αλλαγή αυτή γίνεται λίγο αργότερα όταν και το “κομμουνιστικό” κράτος (ως κατεξοχήν κράτος πρόνοιας) θα καταρρεύσει απότομα, με τις επευφημίες, όμως, των από κάτω. [Α] Το πέρασμα nέες τεχνολογίες Καταρχήν ο τρόπος παραγωγής στον δυτικό κόσμο ανασυγκροτείται γύρω από τον άξονα αυτοματοποίηση-πληροφορική. Μια στατιστικά σημαντική διαφοροποίηση του βάρους του τριτογενή τομέα (βάρος που γίνεται την τελευταία τριακονταετία όλο και πιο μεγάλο), δηλαδή του τομέα των υπηρεσιών, σε σχέση με την προηγούμενη περίοδο, αποτελεί ένα καίριο σημείο αυτής της εξέλιξης. Οι νέες τεχνολογίες (υπολογιστές, ρομποτική) αποκτούν αξία χρήσης, καθώς γίνονται το όχημα για ακόμα μεγαλύτερη μείωση του ανθρώπινου συντελεστή στην εργασία. Με δύο τρόπους: αφενός αντικαθιστώντας ανθρώπινη εργασία (αυτό οι μαρξιστές το λένε μείωση της οργανικής σύνθεσης του κεφαλαίου), αφετέρου μειώνοντας το μέγεθος της συμμετοχής του ανθρώπινου παράγοντα στην παραγωγική διαδικασία. Είναι εύκολα κατανοητό αυτό: σκεφτείτε για παράδειγμα πως συμβάλλει η αντικατάσταση του ταμία της τράπεζας από ένα σύστημα ανάληψης χρημάτων (πέρα από μείωση του κόστους παραγωγής), στην μείωση της πιθανότητας λάθους κατά την χρηματική συναλλαγή. mηχανοποίηση της εργασίας Είναι οι ίδιοι οι αγώνες των εργαζομένων με σύνθημα την «άρνηση της εργασίας» (εκδηλωμένο στην πράξη ως σαμποτάζ με σταμάτημα της παραγωγής, ή παραγωγή ελαττωματικών ανταλλακτικών, λούφα, απεργίες, αδικαιολόγητες απουσίες από την καθημερινή εργασία, κλπ), που αναγκάζουν το κεφάλαιο να βάλει μηχανές που υποκαθιστούν ανθρώπινη εργασία στην βιομηχανία. Είναι η συλλογικοποίηση των αντιστάσεων που δημιουργεί κοινότητες αγώνα και αλληλεγγύης και το σχετικά ευνοϊκό περιβάλλον για την δημιουργία τους στην φορντική μονάδα παραγωγής, που πρέπει να απαντηθεί βάζοντας τους παραγωγούς να δουλεύουν εξατομικευμένα μπροστά στον υπολογιστή, απομονωμένο τον ένα από τον άλλο. Ή ακόμα και αναγκάζοντας τα αφεντικά να μετασχηματίσουν το παραγωγικό σχέδιο. Ένα καλό παράδειγμα για να κατανοήσουμε αυτό που υποστηρίζουμε, είναι αυτό στην αυτοκινητοβιομηχανία Peugeot, στην περιοχή Σοσό της Γαλλίας. Εκεί το τμήμα κατασκευής του αμαξώματος, στο οποίο απασχολούνταν οι πιο εξεγερτικοί εργάτες και το οποίο απαιτούσε την συνεργασία διαφόρων ομάδων τεχνικών για την κατασκευή του, με την αυτοματοποίηση αναδιαρθρώθηκε ριζικά. Το τμήμα αυτό δεν βασιζόταν πια στην αλυσίδα συναρμολόγησης, αλλά σε μερικούς εξειδικευμένους εργάτες που έπρεπε συνεχώς να αλλάζουν θέση για να συναρμολογήσουν κάποια κομμάτια του αμαξώματος, κάνοντας παράλληλα έλεγχο για πιθανά λάθη. Αυτή η αναδιάρθρωση, που άρχισε να εφαρμόζεται στα τέλη της δεκαετίας του ‘70, έσπασε τις προηγούμενες κοινότητες αγώνα που είχαν δημιουργηθεί, έριχνε το βάρος της ευθύνης για λάθη στους ίδιους τους εργάτες μειώνοντας το εύρος των δυνατοτήτων τους για σαμποτάζ, ενώ παράλληλα η επιτήρηση της δουλειάς έγινε ευκολότερη.   mεταφορντισμός Εδώ είναι απαραίτητη μια παρένθεση. Υπάρχει μια μεγάλη συζήτηση σε ακαδημαϊκούς κύκλους για την μετάβαση από το μοντέλο των μεγάλων εργοστασιακών μονάδων με τις αλυσίδες συναρμολόγησης (δηλαδή από την φορντική παραγωγή των δεκαετιών 1930-1970), σε ένα μοντέλο που κυριαρχεί η μικρή ευέλικτη επιχείρηση, στην οποία προάγεται η συμμετοχή των εργαζομένων στην παραγωγική διαδικασία, μετασχηματίζοντας τον ρόλο τους από απλά εκτελεστικά όργανα, σε συμμετέχοντες στις αποφάσεις που αφορούν την παραγωγή. Το ιαπωνικό μοντέλο παραγωγής που πρωτοαναπτύχθηκε στην αυτοκινητο- βιομηχανία Toyota με εξειδικευμένους εργαζόμενους που διακόπτουν την ροή παραγωγής κάθε φορά που διαπιστώνουν ελαττώματα στο προϊόν, και το επισκευάζουν επί τόπου χωρίς να ενημερώνουν τους προϊσταμένους τους, θεωρήθηκε ότι εγκαινιάζει μια γραμμή ρήξης με την φορντικό σχέδιο των πολλαπλών ιεραρχιών και της επιστημονικής οργάνωσης της εργασίας στις παραδοσιακές αλυσίδες συναρμολόγησης. Μια γραμμή που σε συνδυασμό με την ανάπτυξη της just in time παραγωγής και της αλλαγής στην γενικότερη φιλοσοφία της καταναλωτικής ιδεολογίας που προσανατολίζεται πια προς το ξεχωριστό άτομο και όχι προς το σύνολο του πληθυσμού (ένα σημείο που θα αναλυθεί παρακάτω), υποτίθεται ότι συγκροτούν τα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά ενός νέου παραγωγικού μοντέλου, που επικράτησε να λέγεται μεταφορντισμός. Το στοιχείο της μεγαλύτερης συμμετοχής του εργαζομένου στην παραγωγή τονίζεται με κάθε τρόπο σε αυτό το μοντέλο, που υποτίθεται ότι είναι ο κύριος παράγοντας της αύξησης της παραγωγικότητας. Παρόλο που υπάρχουν πολλές και διαφορετικές όψεις αυτής της θεωρίας, όλες αυτές προσπαθούν να εντάξουν την αλλαγή στις μορφές της εργασίας που εισάγει η νεοφιλελεύθερη μορφή κράτος, στην λογική αυτής της μετάβασης. Για παράδειγμα, θεωρείται ότι η ευέλικτη εξειδίκευση που προάγει σήμερα το σύστημα είναι μέρος αυτής της μετάβασης.   αλλαγές των εργασιακών συνθηκών Μιλώντας για παραγωγική διαδικασία, δεν μπορούμε να μιλάμε παρά για κοινωνικές σχέσεις, σχέσεις που έχουν στον πυρήνα τους την εργασία. Η εργασία ως κεντρική καπιταλιστική αξία, εγκαθίσταται στο μάτι του κυκλώνα των μετασχηματισμών που πραγματοποιεί το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος. Η ειδική φορντική σχέση που εξασφάλιζε ένα σχετικά σταθερό (με τάσεις ανόδου) εισόδημα σε όλη την διάρκεια της χρυσής εποχής του κράτους-πρόνοιας, αμφισβητείται σε κάθε της έκφανση. Με αρχή τους πιο προωθημένους τεχνολογικά κλάδους της παραγωγής, αρχίζει να υπερισχύει μια τάση που καταργεί την μονιμότητα της εργασίας ως κεκτημένο, όπως και κάποια πάγια χαρακτηριστικά της στις τελευταίες δεκαετίες όπως το οκτάωρο, την ασφάλιση για την σύνταξη και την υγεία. Η εργασία γίνεται ευέλικτη, ανασφάλιστη, κινητική, προσωρινή. Η εργασία γίνεται απασχόληση. Εδώ συναντάμε μια καινοτομία του νεοφιλελεύθερου κράτους: είναι η σχετικοποίηση της αξίας της εργασίας ως κοινωνικού δικαιώματος, που σαν τέτοια αντίληψη συνιστά ιεροσυλία ενάντια στα δόγματα του κεϋνσυανυσμού- �2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ φορντισμού. Ωστόσο, οι μετασχηματισμοί στην εργασία δεν σταματάνε εδώ. Η νεοφιλελεύθερη ρύθμιση καταστρέφει τα περισσότερα από τα παλιά κοινωνικά συμβόλαια που όριζαν την σύγκρουση μεταξύ κεφαλαίου και εργασίας στις προηγούμενες δεκαετίες: για παράδειγμα οι συμβάσεις εργασίας εξατομικεύονται, στην ίδια επιχείρηση και μεταξύ εργαζομένων της ίδιας ιεραρχικής τάξης παρατηρούνται διαφορετικά επίπεδα μισθών, αποδοχών, διαφορετικά ωράρια εργασίας, κ.α. Η νέα οικονομία (ή μονεταρισμός, όπως ονομάστηκε αυτό το οικονομικό μοντέλο) βασίστηκε κυρίως στην μείωση του κόστους παραγωγής και αναπαραγωγής της εργατικής δύναμης: περικοπές μισθών και συντάξεων, μαζικές απολύσεις στις επιχειρήσεις κατά την διαδικασία «τεχνολογικής»αναδιάρθρωσης τους, περικοπές επιδόματος ανεργίας και άλλων κοινωνικών επιδομάτων, κ.α.   πολιτισμική κρίση Οι αλλαγές στο κοινωνικό πεδίο συμβαδίζουν με παρόμοιες αλλαγές στο ιδεολογικό πεδίο, αλλαγές εξίσου σημαντικές. Η σημασία τους έγκειται στο γεγονός ότι πράγμα που δεν ξέρουμε αν έχει φανεί καθαρά μέχρι τώρα μιλώντας για κρίση της προηγούμενης κοινωνικής μορφής από την δική μας σκοπιά, μιλάμε για ένα φαινόμενο συνολικό που δεν περιστέλλεται στο οικονομικό πεδίο. Δηλαδή, μιλάμε ταυτόχρονα και για πολιτισμική κρίση, κρίση παραγωγής νέων σημασιών από το σύστημα, που θα αντικαταστήσουν τις παλιές αξίες που έχουν φθαρεί. Και εδώ είναι το σημείο που δείχνει την ικανότητα του συστήματος να διαβάζει προσεκτικά τους αγώνες και να τους αποκωδικοποιεί, προκειμένου να βγάλει τα σωστά συμπεράσματα από αυτούς. Αυτός είναι ο λόγος που η ιδεολογία του νεοφιλελεύθερου κράτους αναπτύσσεται σε συμφωνία με ένα ορισμένο πνεύμα αμφισβήτησης. φετιχισμός εμπορευμάτων και ατομικισμός Η κατανάλωση, για παράδειγμα, εξατομικεύεται. Ο μαζικός καταναλωτής του φορντικού μοντέλου που απολάμβανε ένα μίνιμουμ εμπορευμάτων, κοινό με όλο τον υπόλοιπο πληθυσμό, θεωρείται κομφορμιστής, ξεπερασμένος. Η σύγχρονη καταναλωτική ιδεολογία εντατικοποιεί τον φετιχισμό των εμπορευμάτων («το δικό σου αυτοκίνητο, είναι αυτό που ταιριάζει στον δικό σου χαρακτήρα»), εμπλουτίζοντας τον με τον απόηχο της έκρηξης των υποκειμενικοτήτων των περασμένων δεκαετιών (ατομική αυτονομία, δικαίωμα στην διαφορετικότητα), μέσα βέβαια από μια διαδικασία εκφυλισμού τους. Οι παλιές καλές αρχές του καπιταλισμού περί ελευθερίας της βούλησης και ισότητας όλων μέσα στην αγορά, προσαρμόζονται στην νέα εποχή: «Ο καλύτερος προοδεύει», «ισότητα στις ευκαιρίες για πρωτοβουλίες», κ.α. Πάνω σε αυτές τις ιδεολογίες πατάει η κατασκευή της παράστασης του «στελέχους»: του μοντέρνου γιάπη δηλαδή που εργάζεται σκληρά για επιχείρηση που δουλεύει, έτοιμος ανά πάσα στιγμή να προσαρμοστεί στις νέες κοινωνικές συνθήκες, επενδύοντας στην κοινωνική του άνοδο. Η προτεσταντική ηθική της εργασίας βρικολακιάζει στην πιο πρωτόγονη μορφή της. Άλλα όχι μόνο: στο μαλακό υπογάστριο της ιδεολογίας του ατομικισμού, όπως και πάνω στα επιχειρήματα περί της «αρτηριοσκληρυντικής» λειτουργίας του κράτους-πρόνοιας (συγκεντρωτικό, γραφειοκρατικό, μη λειτουργικό), κάνουν την γιορτή τους οι πολιτικές περικοπής, ή κατάργησης όλων των επιδομάτων («γιατί να πληρώνουν όλοι για τους ανεύθυνους που δεν δουλεύουν και θέλουν να τρώνε», κλπ), που είχε εισαγάγει το κράτοςπρόνοιας. Κι αυτό επειδή το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος ιδιωτικοποιεί την ευθύνη: το κόστος οφείλει να βαρύνει στους πολίτες. Για να κόψει το βρετανικό κράτος επί Θάτσερ τα επιδόματα ανεργίας έπρεπε να επιστρατεύσει ολόκληρο το ιδεολογικό οπλοστάσιο του νεοφιλελευθερισμού, να οξύνει τις κοινωνικές αντιθέσεις μέσα στην βρετανική κοινωνία και να πάρει μαζί της εκείνο το μικροαστικό τμήμα της, που το τρόμαζε η αμφισβήτηση αυτού του κόσμου, επειδή η αμφισβήτηση αυτή πιθανόν θα έθιγε τα μικροσυμφέροντα και τα προνόμια που απολάμβανε σε αυτό τον κόσμο. Έπρεπε όμως, να συντρίψει και εκείνη την μεγαλειώδη εξέγερση της «εγγλέζικης» νεολαίας το 1981, και αυτό δεν έγινε ούτε με χρήματα, ούτε με ιδεολογίες. Έγινε αντίθετα, με την επιστράτευση κάθε μηχανισμού από το νόμιμο μονοπώλιο βίας που διέθετε. Με τον ίδιο ακριβώς τρόπο, για να καταφέρει να επιτύχει την αναδιάρθρωση του δευτερογενούς τομέα, έπρεπε να νικήσει καταρχήν ένα από τα παραδοσιακά πιο ανυπόταχτα κομμάτια της βιομηχανικής εργατικής τάξης στην Ευρώπη και στον κόσμο: τους ανθρακωρύχους. η νέα συνθήκη Το νεοφιλελεύθερο σχέδιο, τόσο στην ακραία μορφή που εφαρμόστηκε στον αγγλοσαξονικό χώρο, όσο και στην σοσιαλφιλελεύθερη μορφή που εφαρμόζεται στις άλλες μεγάλες χώρες της Ευρώπης (Γαλλία, Γερμανία, τώρα στην Μ. Βρετανία, Ισπανία, Ελλάδα), τείνει να γίνει ένα καθολικό μοντέλο κοινωνικής οργάνωσης στην σημερινή εποχή, ένα μοντέλο που παρά τους κραδασμούς που του προκαλεί η κοινωνική κίνηση, λόγω της γενικότερης ήττας του επαναστατικού κινήματος, παραμένει προς το παρόν αρκετά ισχυρό παγκόσμια. Είναι φανερό ότι η νέα κοινωνική συνθήκη που αρχίζει να διαμορφώνεται στις χώρες που υλοποιείται το νεοφιλελεύθερο σχέδιο, χαρακτηρίζεται από μια πόλωση των κοινωνικών αντιθέσεων: συγκέντρωση του πλούτου σε ακόμα λιγότερα χέρια, ένταση των κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων στις μητροπόλεις της δύσης, μαζική ανεργία σε ποσοστά που σε άλλες περιόδους θα ήταν απαγορευτικά για την λειτουργία του συστήματος, περιθωριοποίηση ολόκληρων κοινωνικών στρωμάτων. Στις καταστάσεις αυτές που αργά ή γρήγορα και σε διαφορετικό βαθμό έντασης άρχισαν να εμφανίζονται παντού, ανάλογα με την ταχύτητα μετάβασης στην νέα κοινωνική μορφή και τα ιδιάζοντα χαρακτηριστικά της κάθε κοινωνίας, έγινε γρήγορα αντιληπτή η σημασία του τρίτου τομέα της κοινωνίας, ως απαραίτητο συστατικό της νεοφιλελεύθερης μορφής κράτος. Αυτός ο τομέας που υποτίθεται ότι καταλαμβάνει ένα χώρο πέρα από το κράτος και την ιδιωτική πρωτοβουλία, ένα χώρο κενό ανάμεσα σε αυτά τα δύο, επιφορτίζεται από την κυριαρχία με ένα σημαντικό ρόλο σήμερα. Κεντρική σημασία στην ανάπτυξη αυτού του τομέα (που εκφράζεται υλικά με τις μηκυβερνητικές οργανώσεις), είναι ο εθελοντισμός, μια ιδεολογία συμμετοχής στο πολιτικό και κοινωνικό γίγνεσθαι και «προσφοράς στον συνάνθρωπο», που διαφέρει ριζικά από τις μορφές συμμετοχής σε προηγούμενες κοινωνικές συνθήκες. [Β] Η καταγωγή του εθελοντισμού και των MKO Ο Ι ΠΕΡΙΣΣΌΤΕΡΟΙ ΔΙΑΝΟΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ, μοιράζονται μία απλοϊκή αντίληψη των πραγμάτων όταν αντιμετωπίζουν το ζήτημα της καταγωγής του εθελοντισμού και των MKO. Στο ένα άκρο αυτής της αντίληψης βρίσκεται η απόσυρση της παλιάς μορφής κράτος πρόνοιας από τις αναδιανεμητικές και προνοιακές λειτουργίες της προηγούμενης περιόδου και η ανάγκη να καλυφθεί το κενό που δημιουργείται από αυτή την απόσυρση (η θέση �2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ των μαρξιστών) και στο άλλο άκρο η αντίληψη της ενίσχυσης της συμμετοχής των πολιτών στις δημόσιες αποφάσεις που αφορούν την πολιτική ανάπτυξης, τα μέτρα για τις ευπαθείς ομάδες του πληθυσμού, το περιβάλλον, την εξωτερική πολιτική (η θέση των νεοφιλελεύθερων και των σοσιαλφιλελεύθερων). Παρά τις ενδεχόμενες διαφορές που προκύπτουν από αυτές τις δύο γραμμές σκέψης είναι φανερό ότι και οι δύο συμφωνούν ανάμεσα στα άλλα σε μία από τα πάνω κατασκευή τόσο της εθελοντικής ιδεολογίας, όσο και του τρίτου τομέα. Όμως τα πράγματα δεν είναι τόσο απλά… παρακάτω θα προσπαθήσουμε να αναλύσουμε το ζήτημα από μία εντελώς διαφορετική θέση. Νομίζουμε πια έχει γίνει κατανοητό ότι τα φαινόμενα τα οποία αναλύουμε τα αντιλαμβανόμαστε σαν διαδικασίες, σαν διαρκείς κινήσεις και όχι σαν στιγμές ή καταστάσεις. Έτσι όταν μιλούσαμε στο πρώτο μέρος για νίκες και ήττες στο πεδίο της ταξικής πάλης και του κοινωνικού ανταγωνισμού, δεν εννοούσαμε καθολική εξαφάνιση του ηττημένου και απόλυτη κυριαρχία του νικητή. Η δεκαετία του ‘80 είναι μία εποχή ήττας και υποχώρησης για τα ανταγωνιστικά υποκείμενα. Αυτό, αν συνδυαστεί με την απόγνωση που οδήγησε μέρος των υποκειμένων στην ένοπλη πάλη και την τρομερή καταστολή που υπέστη ένα μεγάλο μέρος του ανταγωνιστικού κινήματος, με την απογοήτευση και την ματαιότητα των παλιών πολιτικών δομών λενινιστικού τύπου και τέλος με την αδυναμία των περισσότερων πολιτικών υποκειμένων να ερμηνεύσουν την ήττα, θα οδηγήσουν σε νέους δρόμους όσα πολιτικά υποκείμενα δεν παραιτήθηκαν εντελώς. Αν κάνουμε μία απόπειρα να περιγράψουμε ποιο είναι αυτό το κομμάτι θα μπορούσε να το περιγράψουμε σαν εκείνο το κομμάτι που τόνιζε την ανάγκη (μία ανάγκη πολύ σημαντική εφόσον εντάσσεται στα πλαίσια ενός ανταγωνιστικού κινήματος) η άρνηση και η αμφισβήτηση της εξουσίας και της εργασίας να συγκροτείται όχι μόνο από αρνητικά (ελευθερία από…) αλλά και από θετικά χαρακτηριστικά (ελευθερία για...). Και ήταν εκείνο το κομμάτι το οποίο στην προηγούμενη περίοδο θα έχει ήδη προσπαθήσει να δημιουργήσει ανταγωνιστικές δομές και να ξεπεράσει τον αυστηρά μαρξιστικόλενινιστικό χαρακτήρα ενός πολιτικού κινήματος. Με δύο λέξεις τα νέα υποκείμενα, που αμφισβητούσαν κάθε ηθική της εργασίας και διαμεσολάβηση, που έθιγαν ζητήματα τα οποία το παραδοσιακό μαρξιστικόλενινιστικό πολιτικό κίνημα ή τα μετέθετε στην αυτόματη επίλυση τους στην μετεπαναστατική κοινωνία (στην καλύτερη) ή τα εξόριζε στον ορίζοντα του μικροαστισμού (στην χειρότερη) όπως: φύλο, φυλή, ασθένεια, τέχνη, τάξη, κοινότητα κλπ. Ήδη λοιπόν από την δεκαετία του ’70 θα υπάρχουν δομές ενταγμένες στα πλαίσια ενός πολιτικού κινήματος. Η δεκαετία του ’80 θα είναι η εποχή της άνθισης του εναλλακτισμού και «των οάσεων ελευθερίας μέσα στην έρημο του καπιταλισμού». Ένα πλήθος κοινωνικών δομών που είχε εμπνεύσει και είχε οικοδομήσει μία συλλογική ευφυΐα και φαντασία χιλιάδων ανθρώπων, δομών που αρνούνταν την διαμεσολάβηση των κυρίαρχων θεσμών, την λογική του κέρδους και την ίδια την κοινωνική θέσμιση, συνέχισαν να αναπτύσσονται και να επεκτείνονται. Θεραπευτικές κλινικές και κοινότητες (που θέλησαν να ξεπεράσουν τον εξουσιαστικό χαρακτήρα της σχέσης γιατρούασθενή και το θετικισμό της δυτικής ιατρικής), οργανώσεις για την υπεράσπιση δικαιωμάτων (γυναικών, μαύρων, ομοφυλόφιλων, μεταναστών, προσφύγων κλπ.) και δίκτυα υποστήριξης και αλληλεγγύης, ομάδες παρέμβασης και δράσης για ένα τεράστιο φάσμα ζητημάτων (από το οικολογικό μέχρι τα δικαιώματα του καταναλωτή), κοινωνικά κέντρα (που προσπαθούσαν να αναδημιουργήσουν την κοινότητα π.χ. στην Αγγλία), καταλήψεις στέγης (για μία ριζοσπαστική αντίληψη του χώρου και του χρόνου και ενάντια στην εμπορευματική χρήση της κατοικίας), ελευθεριακά σχολεία αλλά και κοινόβια, καλλιτεχνικές κολλεκτίβες κλπ. Πέραν των παραπάνω όμως, έχει ήδη συντελεστεί μέσα στο κοινωνικό πεδίο μία σημαντική αλλαγή: δεν υπάρχει πια ανταγωνιστικό κίνημα. Εντός αυτού του ανταγωνιστικού κινήματος όλα τα παραπάνω είχαν μία x σημασία. Αυτό που μένει να υπάρχει είναι η υποχώρηση του ανταγωνιστικού κινήματος και επέλαση του νεοφιλελεύθερου κράτους, εντός των οποίων όλα τα παραπάνω αποκτούν μία άλλη y σημασία. Ποια είναι όμως η x και ποια η y σημασία; Αν και η x σημασία δεν είναι του παρόντος ωστόσο να πούμε κάποια πράγματα: η ύπαρξη δομών τέτοιου είδους ήταν μία απόπειρα να ξεπεραστεί ένα λενινιστικό μοντέλο οργάνωσης, η ύπαρξη ενός δικτύου δομών παράλληλα, εντός και σε άμεση συνάρτηση με το κίνημα προσδίδει έναν άλλο χαρακτήρα διαφορετικό από αυτόν της μονολιθικής οργάνωσης, καθότι ξεδιπλώνει μέσα σε αυτή την πραγματικότητα μία αντί πρόταση επίλυσης ζητημάτων και προβλημάτων. Ακόμα, τροφοδοτεί το κοινωνικό με πολιτικά χαρακτηριστικά, (δείχνοντας για παράδειγμα και την πολιτική σημασία ενός σχεδόν οποιουδήποτε προβλήματος) αλλά και το πολιτικό με το κοινωνικό (δείχνοντας πάλι για παράδειγμα την πολιτική λύση που μπορεί να δοθεί σε κάποιο πρόβλημα). Αυτά ακούγονται κάπως περίεργα στις μέρες μας. Όμως, ας μην ξεχνάμε ότι οι πολιτικές λύσεις δεν είναι μόνο οι μεταρρυθμίσεις του νομικού συστήματος, αλλά ας θυμηθούμε ότι πολιτική λύση είναι και η επανάσταση και η δημοκρατία των συμβουλίων. Ποια όμως y σημασία αποκτούν όλα τα παραπάνω μέσα στην δεκαετία του ’80, και άρα μέσα σε μία συνθήκη έλλειψης ανταγωνιστικού κινήματος; Παράλληλα με την παραπάνω διαδικασία, έλαβε χώρα και μία άλλη διαδικασία που κωδικοποιημένα ονομάζεται αφομοίωση. Δύο τρία πραγματάκια σε σχέση με αυτό. Η αφομοίωση δεν είναι μία διαδικασία που λαμβάνει χώρα σε κάποιους σκοτεινούς κύκλους διανοούμενων του συστήματος οι οποίοι κάθονται να συζητήσουν τι είναι χρήσιμο για την ανάπτυξη του καπιταλισμού. Η αφομοίωση είναι τόσο μία παθητική διαδικασία των υποκειμένων του ανταγωνισμού και όσο και μία ενεργητική διαδικασία των ίδιων υποκειμένων, και αυτό το λέμε επειδή τις περισσότερες φορές η αφομοίωση γίνεται αντιληπτή μόνο σαν παθητική διαδικασία. Με δυο λόγια, τις περισσότερες φορές τα ανταγωνιστικά υποκείμενα που αφομοιώνονται είτε αναγκάζονται είτε επιθυμούν να αφομοιωθούν (γιατί δεν μπορούν να βρουν άλλες λύσεις, γιατί ματαιώθηκαν, γιατί βασικά ηττήθηκαν και παρέμειναν ηττημένα). Προφανώς αυτή η πρόταση δεν εξηγεί τα πάντα, υπάρχουν π.χ. και μία σειρά αντικειμενικών λόγων που θα ωθήσουν τα άτομα στο να στελεχώσουν τις καπιταλιστικές λειτουργίες μέσα στο ’80. Σε αυτές τις συνθήκες εναλλακτισμού και αφομοίωσης, θα συμβεί μία κρίσιμη καμπή. Μία στροφή που θα γίνει όταν όλες αυτές οι δομές και θεσμίσεις και τα υποκείμενα εντός αυτών επιδιώκουν την ένταξη και την συμμετοχή σε αυτό που ονομάζεται «κοινωνία των πολιτών». Ως ένα βαθμό, είναι αναγκασμένα να πράξουν έτσι, προκειμένου η δράση τους να έχει αποτέλεσμα, από την άλλη η αφομοίωση αλλά και η ιδεολογική επίθεση από το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος θα παίξουν σημαντικό ρόλο. Ωστόσο, μάλλον το βασικότερο παραμένει η έλλειψη αποτελεσματικότητας της δράσης. Η όποια αποτελεσματικότητα τους το ’70 ήταν αποτελεσματικότητα του κινήματος, με αποτέλεσμα η έλλειψη κινήματος να σημαίνει ως ένα βαθμό έλλειψη αποτελεσματικότητας. Συμπέρασμα: οι δομές που την δεκαετία του ’70 ήταν μέρος του ανταγωνιστικού κινήματος την δεκαετία του ’80 θα αυτονομηθούν και από ένα σημείο και ύστερα θα επιδιώξουν την συμμετοχή τους στην «κοινωνία των πολιτών», πράγμα το οποίο σημαίνει και μία ανάλογη στροφή, στον χαρακτήρα, στον προσανατολισμό, στην δράση, στην οργάνωση κλπ και πράγμα το οποίο σημαίνει ακόμα περισσότερο ότι αποποιούνται τα προηγούμενα (τα όποια) ανταγωνιστικά τους χαρακτηριστικά. �2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ παραδείγματα O Μπους θα εμφανιστεί το 1990 να δηλώσει: «Τα άτομα είναι αυτά που παίζουν το ρόλο τους για να κάνουν την Αμερική έναν καλύτερο τόπο. Είναι ο μαθητής που μένει μετά το σχολείο για να βοηθήσει τον συμμαθητή του. Είναι ο ηγέτης της κοινότητας που βρίσκει τα χρήματα ώστε να χτιστεί ένας σταθμός για την φροντίδα φτωχών παιδιών… Είναι ο εθελοντής που πηγαίνει φαγητό στα σπίτια των ηλικιωμένων. Και υπάρχουν χίλια άλλα φωτεινά σημεία για όλους όσους κάτι συνεισφέρουν. Αυτό είναι το μεγαλείο της Αμερικής. Φιλοδοξία της κυβέρνησης μου είναι να κάνει αυτά τα φωτεινά σημεία να λάμψουν περισσότερο από ποτέ». Ήδη βέβαια και από το 1983 το θέμα του εθελοντισμού είχε γίνει κεντρικό για τον πρόεδρο Ρήγκαν με συχνές αναφορές του να ξαναπάρει στα χέρια του ο κόσμος ότι κάποτε θεωρούσε ότι έπρεπε να κάνει ο ίδιος εθελοντικά, «μέσα από την καλοσύνη της καρδιάς του και από μία αίσθηση κοινότητας». Με τον εθελοντισμό το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος αντιλαμβάνεται ότι υπάρχει μία δεξαμενή εργασίας που μπορεί να εκμεταλλευθεί για να καλύψει ένα μέρος της προνοιακής πολιτικής του χωρίς παράλληλα να επωμιστεί το κόστος αυτής της πολιτικής. Πριν κλείσουμε αυτή την ενότητα θα δώσουμε ένα τελευταίο παράδειγμα, που συνολικοποιεί σαν τέτοιο τις περισσότερες από τις διαδικασίες που αναφέραμε. Το παράδειγμα είναι η προνοιακή πολιτική του ελληνικού κράτους για τους μετανάστες. Μέχρι και την δεκαετία του ’90 το ελληνικό κράτος δεν είχε σχεδόν καμία υποδομή και καμία πολιτική υποδοχής μεταναστών (για τον πολύ απλό λόγο ότι δεν του χρειάστηκε). Σήμερα 15 χρόνια μετά υπάρχει ένα ολόκληρο δίκτυο προνοιακής πολιτικής για τους μετανάστες. Πως στήθηκε αυτό το δίκτυο; Δηλώνουμε με πλήρη γνώση ότι όλη η μεταναστευτική πολιτική του ελληνικού κράτους (ή τέλος πάντων αυτό που υπάρχει σαν μεταναστευτική πολιτική) είναι βασισμένη στο συντριπτικά μεγαλύτερο της ποσοστό στις διαδικασίες που αναφέραμε: ιατροφαρμακευτική περίθαλψη προσφέρουν ΜΚΟ όπως «Οι γιατροί χωρίς σύνορα» και οι «Γιατροί του κόσμου», νομική βοήθεια το Δίκτυο, φαί και ρούχα θα τους προσφέρουν μία σειρά φιλανθρωπικών οργανώσεων (π.χ. το σωματείο… «Άρτος Δράση»), στέγαση μία σειρά ξενώνων. Έτσι, το ελληνικό κράτος κατάφερε κάτι αρκετά έξυπνο. Δεν πληρώνει φράγκο στους μετανάστες ούτε για τα στοιχειώδη (αυτά τα καλύπτουν αφενός οι ΜΚΟ και τα «άτυπα δίκτυα κοινωνικής φροντίδας»). Όποιος θέλει να κάνει την σύγκριση (και θα ήταν πολύ ενδιαφέρον να κάνει και μία σύγκριση κόστους), ας συγκρίνει την μεταναστευτική κοινωνική πολιτι- κή βιομηχανικών χωρών στις δεκαετίες ’60 και ’70 με την μεταναστευτική πολιτική του ελληνικού κράτους την δεκαετία του ’90. Αν μη τι άλλο θα καταλάβει ακόμα καλύτερα ποια είναι η τεράστια διαφορά.   Έτσι φτάσαμε... Όλα όμως τα παραπάνω θα πρέπει να βρεθούν μέσα σε εκείνες τις κατάλληλες συνθήκες προκειμένου να μας δώσουν το αποτέλεσμα που σήμερα ονομάζουμε ΜΚΟ και εθελοντισμός. Οι κατάλληλες συνθήκες είναι το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος. Οι περικοπές επιδομάτων και το σύνθημα το κόστος στους πολίτες θα ωθήσει και θα εξαναγκάσει πολλούς επαγγελματίες της κοινωνικής πολιτικής να τρέξουν να βρουν εθελοντές («που ενδιαφέρονται για τα κοινά»). Οι ευέλικτες επιχειρήσεις, η πολυειδίκευση, η ελαστική εργασία θα αποτελέσουν τους κρίσιμους κρίκους στην οργάνωση των ΜΚΟ. Οι νέες τεχνολογίες επιτρέποντας από την μία πιο γρήγορες συναλλαγές και ακόμα πιο γρήγορες ανταλλαγές πληροφοριών θα επιτρέψουν την δημιουργία δικτύων υποστηρικτών, μελών και πελατών, χωρίς να υπολογίζουμε την μείωση του κόστους της εργασίας που επιφέρει μία και μόνο μηχανή (ο ηλεκτρονικός υπολογιστής). Αυτά από την μία, από την άλλη οι ιδεολογικοί μετασχηματισμοί που έλαβαν χώρα την δεκαετία του ’80 και η θαυμαστή εποχή της «κοινωνίας των πολιτών» θα πάρουν ένα προς ένα τα ήδη ηττημένα αιτήματα των ‘80s και θα τα επιστρέψουν: κοινωνική συμμετοχή, εμπλουτισμός της εμπειρίας, ακτιβισμός, διεθνείς ευαισθησίες κλπ. Ακόμα πολλά αιτήματα που εκφέρονται από τα κάτω θα ληφθούν σοβαρά υπόψη, θα χρηματοδοτηθούν και θα υποστηριχθούν. Στα χρόνια που ακολουθούν λαμβάνουν χώρα μία σειρά διεργασιών: από την μία η σοβαρή κρίση στην οποία βρίσκεται η αντιπροσώπευση. Από την μία τα συνδικάτα, έχασαν όση στοιχειώδη νομιμοποίηση είχε απομείνει από την κριτική των κινημάτων αμφισβήτησης, από το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος αυτή την φορά (κατάργηση ουσιαστικά της μόνιμης και σταθερής εργασίας μέσω ατομικών συμβάσεων, εποχιακών, προσωρινών ελαστικών κλπ αλλά και αλλαγές στον τρόπο οργάνωσης της εργασίας). Τα κόμματα από την άλλη, μετά και από την κατάρρευση των καθεστώτων του «υπαρκτού σοσιαλισμού» βρέθηκαν σε μία μικρή κρίση αναπροσανατολισμού μιας και το «αριστερά» και το «δεξιά», χάνουν την σημασία τους και πια τα κόμματα σταματούν να αντιπροσωπεύουν παρά μόνο στοιχειωδώς το «σοσιαλισμό» ή τον «φιλελευθερισμό». Χαρακτηριστικό επ’ αυτού είναι αφενός η κρίση κάποιων ΚΚ της Ευρώπης (το γαλλικό και το ιταλικό, τα ισχυρότερα κάποτε έχουν διαλυθεί…) όσο και το ότι η διαφορετικότητα των κομμάτων της εξουσίας έγκειται στο ποιο μπορεί να διαχειριστεί καλύτερα την εξουσία. Υπάρχει λοιπόν, ένα κενό διαμεσολάβησης και αντιπροσώπευσης, ένα κενό συνδιαλλαγής. Η δεκαετία του ’90 θα είναι το καζάνι που όλα τα παραπάνω θα ανακατευτούν για να μας δώσουν αυτό το υπέροχο μείγμα. Η νεοφιλελεύθερη συνθήκη πια επεκτείνεται ολοένα και περισσότερο, ο εθελοντισμός είναι στις ατζέντες όλων σχεδόν των κομμάτων, των οργανισμών ακόμα και των υπηρεσιών. Μέσα όμως σε αυτή την δεκαετία ελάχιστα θα έχουν απομείνει από τις παλιές δομές του ανταγωνιστικού κινήματος. Και πια το μόνο που μπορούμε να βρούμε στις ΜΚΟ είναι ο «ανθρωπισμός» και η πιο τελειωμένη σοσιαλδημοκρατία. Συνοψίζουμε: ο εθελοντισμός και οι μκο είναι μία κοινωνική-ιστορική δημιουργία, άμεσο προϊόν του κοινωνικού και ταξικού ανταγωνισμού. Σε αυτή την δημιουργία συμμετέχει τόσο ένα τμήμα των υποκειμένων του κοινωνικού ανταγωνισμού μετά την ήττα των δεκαετιών ’60 και ’70, όσο και του νεοφιλελεύθερου κράτους που αντιλαμβάνεται την αξία χρήσης αυτού του πράγματος. Ο βαθμός της συμμετοχής του ενός ή του άλλου είναι διαφορετικός ανάλογα με την περίπτωση και τα ιδιαίτερα χαρακτηριστικά της κάθε κοινωνίας.   [Γ] Η αξία χρήσης του εθελοντισμού Ο ΤΡΊΤΟΣ ΤΟΜΈΑΣ ΣΉΜΕΡΑ αποτελεί έναν από τους πιο ραγδαία αναπτυσσόμενους τομείς ανάμεσα στα πιο προηγμένα καπιταλιστικά κράτη. Μόνο στις ΗΠΑ για παράδειγμα στις αρχές του ’90 υπήρχαν πάνω από 1.400.000 μη κερδοσκοπικοί οργανισμοί (!), ενώ στην Αγγλία κατά την ίδια περίοδο γύρω στις 160.000 ε πίσημα καταχωρημένες οργανώσεις. Ανάλογες τάσεις επέκτασης του τρίτου τομέα παρατηρούνται και στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες όπου υπάρχουν καταγεγραμμένες πάνω από 35.000 οργανώσεις από τις οποίες οι 20.000 δραστηριοποιούνται στην Ασία. Όσον αφορά την Ελλάδα σημείο καμπής για την ανάπτυξη των ΜΚΟ θεωρείται ο πόλεμος στο Κόσοβο, όπου μια πλειάδα εθελοντικών οργανώσεων προσέφεραν υποστήριξη στο δικτατορικό καθεστώς του Μιλόσεβιτς και ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια προορισμένη στη βάση εθνικών διακρίσεων. Η πρωτοβουλία αυτή των ΜΚΟ, που δεν περιορίστηκε απλά και μόνο στην �2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια, αλλά έλαβε τα χαρακτηριστικά ενεργούς πολιτικής παρέμβασης, αν και ως ένα βαθμό στηρίχτηκε από το ελληνικό κράτος και την εκκλησία, ωστόσο δημιούργησε προβλήματα στη σχέση των ελληνικών με τα διεθνή αφεντικά: «ειδικότερα στην περίπτωση του Κοσόβου, ορισμένες ΜΚΟ θα μπορούσαν να χαρακτηριστούν και ως επιχειρησιακός βραχίονας της φιλοσερβικής κοινής γνώμης, καθώς έφτασαν στο σημείο να έρθουν σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις σε αντιπαράθεση και με την επίσημη εξωτερική πολιτική των “ίσων αποστάσεων”. Αυτή η διάσταση μεταξύ της κοινής γνώμης, που εκφράστηκε από “εθελοντικές δράσεις”, και του επίσημου κράτους, που έπρεπε να ευθυγραμμιστεί με τις διεθνείς δεσμεύσεις, έφερε σε δύσκολη θέση το διεθνές κύρος της χώρας». Ένα αποτελέσματα της δράσης που ανέπτυξαν οι ΜΚΟ ήταν και η επιβολή κυρώσεων στο ελληνικό τμήμα της εθελοντικής οργάνωσης «Γιατροί Χωρίς Σύνορα» για παράβαση του καταστατικού της οργάνωσης περί αμερόληπτης παροχής βοήθειας σε θύματα πολέμων από όπου αυτά κι αν προέρχονται Η τεράστια σημασία του τρίτου τομέα καθώς και ο ιδεολογικός ρόλος με τον οποίο τον έχει επιφορτίσει η κυριαρχία αποτελεί έναν από τους πιο βασικούς άξονες χάραξης καθεστωτικής πολιτικής σήμερα από όλες τις κυρίαρχες πολιτικές δυνάμεις. Και επειδή ο εθελοντισμός κάνει τη «βρώμικη δουλειά» μέσα στο νεοφιλελεύθερο πλαίσιο, επωμιζόμενος το κοινωνικό κόστος (υλικό ή ιδεολογικό) ενεργειών που θέλει να ξεφορτωθεί το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος και το ιδιωτικό κεφάλαιο, γι’ αυτό ακριβώς καθίσταται ένα μέσο με αξία χρήσης βαρύνουσας σημασίας στα χέρια των αφεντικών σήμερα. Η χρησιμοποίηση του τρίτου τομέα έχει ως απώτερο σκοπό την επιβολή της κοινωνικής ειρήνης και τη διατήρηση, ως ένα βαθμό, της κοινωνικής συνοχής, ούτως ώστε τ’ αφεντικά να είναι σε θέση να αποσπούν κοινωνική συναίνεση ακόμα και σε περιόδους όξυνσης του κοινωνικού πολέμου. Ειδικότερα, μπορούμε να πούμε πως η αξία χρήσης του εθελοντισμού συνίσταται στα εξής:   [1] δωρεάν εργασία Πρώτα και κύρια στη δωρεάν εργασία. Η εθελοντική εργασία αποτελεί μια μορφή σχέσης λίγο έως πολύ ελεύθερη που δεν προσβλέπει σε κάποιο άμεσο αντάλλαγμα ή αποτέλεσμα. Τα αφεντικά και το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος καρπώνονται σήμερα χιλιάδες ώρες από τη συνεισφορά εθελοντικών εργασιών δεκάδων χιλιάδων ευαίσθητων πολιτών. Η δωρεάν εργασία περιλαμβάνει μια πληθώρα υπηρεσιών που γίνεται από τα ίδια τα υποκείμενα αυτόβουλα, εν είδη προσφοράς, χωρίς την προσδοκία κάποιου υλικού κέρδους. Παραδείγματα τέτοιου τύπου δωρεάν εργασίας είναι άφθονα: από την προσφορά βοήθειας σε ξενώνες και κέντρα απεξάρτησης και επανένταξης τοξικομανών έως και τη συμμετοχής σε περιβαλλοντικές οργανώσεις, αντιρατσιστικές πρωτοβουλίες, πρωτοβουλίες προστασίας των δικαιωμάτων των καταναλωτών κ.ο.κ. Άλλωστε, ακόμα και ιδιωτικές εταιρίες έχουν αρχίσει να προσφεύγουν στη λύση των εθελοντών ώστε να καλύψουν τις ανάγκες σε περιόδους αυξημένης ζήτησης(!). Η εθελοντική εργασία σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις ωστόσο, δεν είναι τελείως δωρεάν λόγω του ότι προσφέρονται κάποιες απολαβές, είτε χρηματικές είτε με κάποια άλλη μορφή προνομίων, στα μέλη εθελοντικών οργανώσεων που αναλαμβάνουν τέτοιες εργασίες. Συχνά, δε, το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος προσφέρει φοροαπαλλαγές και χρηματοδότηση σε ΜΚΟ με αντάλλαγμα εθελοντική εργασία. Ωστόσο, αν επιμένουμε να μιλάμε για δωρεάν εργασία είναι γιατί, ακόμα και στις περιπτώσεις όπου υπάρχουν κάποια μορφής ανταλλάγματα, η εργασία αυτή δεν εμφανίζει τα χαρακτηριστικά της μισθωτής σχέσης όπως τουλάχιστον αυτή είναι γνωστή από την καπιταλιστική αγορά (έστω κι αν είναι ανασφάλιστη και ευέλικτη) και το βασικότερο οι εθελοντές δεν την αντιλαμβάνονται ως «εργασία». Το γεγονός αυτό επιτρέπει στα αφεντικά να διαχειρίζονται τον πλεονάζοντα πληθυσμό, που λόγω της αποσταθεροποίησης της αγοράς εργασίας έχει μείνει άνεργος. Βασική συνέπεια επομένως της στρατηγικής αυτής είναι και η διαχείριση της ανεργίας. Η ύπαρξη δηλαδή ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ανέργων χρησιμοποιείται από το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος ως εφεδρεία στην διεκπεραίωση εργασιών με την παροχή διευκολύνσεων και κάποιας μορφής ανταλλαγμάτων. Παραδείγματα τέτοιων ενεργειών είναι η εθελοντική συμμετοχή σε προγράμματα (που συχνά προστίθενται στο βιογραφικό) και επιτρέπουν, υποτίθεται, στους συμμετέχοντες να βρουν μια θέση στην αγορά εργασίας. [2] συμμετοχή στις κρατικές λειτουργίες Μια άλλη αξία χρήσης του εθελοντισμού είναι πως αποτελεί μια νέα μορφής συμμετοχής στις κρατικές λειτουργίες. Το νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος έχοντας υπό την κηδεμονία του ένα βασικό αριθμό από ΜΚΟ αποσκοπεί στο να στρέψει τις εθελοντικές τους δραστηριότητες σε τομείς όπου μπορεί ανέξοδα να συμπληρώσει την ελλειμματική του παρουσία ή ακόμα και την πλήρη απουσία του. Μια τέτοιου είδους μορφή συμμετοχής στις κρατικές λειτουργίες αποτελεί η εθελοντική δουλειά σε ναρκομανείς, άστεγους, φυλακισμένους, κλπ. πολλών κοινωνικών λειτουργών, ψυχολόγων και κοινωνιολόγων. Κάνοντας μια αναγωγή μπορούμε να πούμε πως μεγάλος αριθμός εθελοντών αποτελούν τα στελέχη που πλαισίωναν με την εργασία τους το παλιό κράτος-πρόνοιας, αν και πολλά από τα μέλη θα μπορούσαν να ανήκουν σε κομματικές επιτροπές παλαιού τύπου. Η συμμετοχή στις εθελοντικές οργανώσεις με αυτήν την έννοια αποτελεί συμμετοχή σε αντιπροσωπευτικούς μηχανισμούς μεταβίβασης συμφερόντων νέου τύπου μεταξύ κοινωνίας και κράτους.   [3] αποκατάσταση της «διερρηγμένης» κοινωνικής συνοχής Μια άλλη αξία χρήσης του εθελοντισμού, που συνδέεται με την παραπάνω, είναι η αποκατάσταση της «διερρηγμένης» κοινωνικής συνοχής που προκάλεσε η κατάρρευση των προνοιακών πολιτικών. Οι μετασχηματισμοί που περιγράψαμε στην αρχή αυτού του κειμένου στο οικονομικό τομέα και στο επίπεδο της παραγωγής καθώς και οι αντιστάσεις των κινημάτων από την άλλη, οδήγησαν σε μια αναδιαμόρφωση των μορφών κοινωνικής αλληλεγγύης. Η αύξηση δηλαδή της ανεργίας και η άνοδος του ατομικισμού, οδήγησαν στην περιθωριοποίηση και τη γκετοποίηση μεγάλα τμήματα του πληθυσμού. Στο σημείο αυτό είναι που παρεμβαίνει ο εθελοντισμός και έρχεται να καλύψει ακόμα ένα «κενό» που αφήνει το κράτος-πρόνοιας γεγονός που στο λόγο των αφεντικών χρίζει ιδιαίτερης βαρύτητας: «Δυστυχώς, όσο και αν διευρυνθεί το “κοινωνικό κράτος”, το έλλειμμα στοργής και ανθρώπινης συμπαράστασης στους πάσχοντες και στους μοναχικούς συμπολίτες μας δεν καλύπτεται με επιδόματα ή με τα ράντσα στα νοσοκομεία. H εθελοντική συμπαράσταση στους πάσχοντες έχει συγκινήσει και έχει στρατεύσει ευάριθμους πολίτες, κυρίως γυναίκες, από πολλά χρόνια πριν, όταν και οι κοινωνικές υπηρεσίες του κράτους ήταν ανύπαρκτες ή ελλιπείς. Η νοοτροπία ότι για όλα έχει ευθύνη και αποστολή το κράτος είναι το αντικίνητρο του εθελοντισμού και το πρόσχημα για την ισχυροποίηση του “εγώ”». Με άλλα λόγια, οι υπάρχοντες θεσμοί δεν αρκούν να διασφαλίσουν την ενσωμάτωση των ατόμων ούτε και να παράσχουν πρότυπα και αξίες όπως στο παρελθόν και έτσι ο εθελοντισμός καλείται να απορροφήσει τους κραδασμούς της νεοφιλελεύθερης επίθεσης και να βοηθήσει στην ομαλή ένταξη των περιθωριοποιημένων και των απόκληρων του συστήματος. Ένα παράδειγμα μιας τέτοιου είδους εθελοντικής πρακτικής ήταν τα λεγόμενα «αντιθερμά καλοκαίρια», που εφαρμόστηκαν στη Γαλλία από τα τέλη της δεκαετίας του ’80, �2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ μετά από την αύξηση της ημιπαρανομίας και των «παραβατικών» ενεργειών από ομάδες νέων με σκοπό την επανένταξη των περιθωριοποιημένων νέων μέσα από την παροχή υπηρεσιών σε κοινωφελή ιδρύματα. Υπάρχει ένα υπόλοιπο της εθελοντικής πρακτικής που δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα αναπτυγμένο στον ελλαδικό χώρο, αντίθετα από ότι διεθνώς, που της προσδίδει μία σχετικά καινοτόμα αξία χρήσης για την σύγχρονη κρατική μορφή. [4] συμπλήρωμα κρατικών πολιτικών Είναι η προώθηση και η ενσωμάτωση της εθελοντικής ιδεολογίας και πρακτικής σαν επικουρική συνιστώσα των κρατικών πολιτικών. Για παράδειγμα, η συστράτευση με το αμερικάνικο κράτος τόσων πολλών στρατιωτικών εταιριών στο πολεμικό πεδίο του Ιράκ, εταιριών που είτε έχουν ρόλο εκπαίδευσης του ντόπιου πληθυσμού στις σύγχρονες πρακτικές περί ασφάλειας και πολέμου, είτε αναλαμβάνουν την φύλαξη και την ασφάλεια διαφόρων στρατιωτικών στόχων, επιβεβαιώνει μια συμπλοκή του εθελοντισμού με την εξωτερική πολιτική του κράτους. Ωστόσο, πρέπει να είμαστε προσεκτικοί σε αυτό το σημείο. Τα χαρακτηριστικά τέτοιου τύπου «εθελοντικών οργανώσεων» είναι διαφορετικά από ότι έχουμε περιγράψει (όσον αφορά τον ρόλο, τον τρόπο λειτουργίας, την σχέση εργασίας που κυριαρχεί σε αυτές, τον ιδεολογικό προσανατολισμό τους), σε σημείο που μας κάνει να υποθέσουμε βάσιμα ότι αποτελούν ένα παράδειγμα για το πώς το ιδιωτικό κεφάλαιο αναγνωρίζοντας τα σημεία των καιρών συγκαλύπτει τις δραστηριότητες του (μιλιταριστικού χαρακτήρα στην συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση), με τον ίδιο πάντα σκοπό (δηλαδή τις μπίζνες του), σε σύμπλευση με τον στρατιωτικό βραχίονα του κράτους. Πιο απλά: μιλάμε δηλαδή περισσότερο για την χρήσης μιας κοινωνικής ομπρέλας (ή καλύτερα ταμπέλας, αυτής του εθελοντισμού) από το ιδιωτικό στρατιωτικό κεφάλαιο και από το αμερικάνικο κράτος, προκειμένου να αποσπαστεί η απαραίτητη κοινωνική συναίνεση, παρά για μια εφαρμογή της εθελοντικής πρακτικής και ιδεολογίας. Για τον ίδιο λόγο οι έλληνες μισθοφόροι φασίστες που πολέμησαν στο πλευρό των σερβοφασιστών στην διάρκεια του γιουγκοσλάβικου εμφυλίου, μόνο εθελοντές θεωρούμε ότι δεν μπορούν να χαρακτηριστούν. Χαρακτηρίστηκαν ωστόσο έτσι ώστε να συγκαλυφθεί ο πραγματικός χαρακτήρας της σχέσης τους με τμήματα του ελληνικού κράτους, και η ιμπεριαλιστική του στρατηγική που καλύφθηκε κάτω από τον μανδύα της ελληνοσερβικής φιλίας. [5] συγκάλυψη βαθύτερων αιτιών και ευθυνών Πέρα από αυτά, όπως είπαμε και προηγουμένως, ο εθελοντισμός αποτελεί μια νέα ιδεολογία συμμετοχής στα πολιτικά και κοινωνικά δρώμενα με διαφορετικά χαρακτηριστικά σε σχέση με το παρελθόν. Το ιδεολογικό στοιχείο με το οποίο έχει επενδυθεί η λειτουργία αυτή είναι η επικέντρωση της προσοχής στα συμπτώματα και τα παρεπόμενα του συστήματος, συγκαλύπτοντας τις βαθύτερες αιτίες των σημερινών ζητημάτων. Μένοντας δηλαδή μυωπικά προσκολλημένη στην αντιμετώπιση επιμέρους προβλημάτων, η ιδεολογία αυτή αποκρύπτει την οποιαδήποτε σύνδεση των προβλημάτων αυτών με άλλα ευρύτερα, αποσιωπώντας έτσι εντέλει την ίδια την ύπαρξη της καπιταλιστικής σχέσης και της συνειδητοποίησης του καπιταλισμού ως σχέση. Η λογική των εθελοντικών πρακτικών δεν αντιλαμβάνεται τα προβλήματα ως πολιτικά, αλλά αντίθετα ως προβλήματα «διαχείρισης» της κρίσης του υπάρχοντος συστήματος, ως «αστοχίες» του κυβερνητικού σχεδιασμού ή ως «δυσλειτουργίες» των «υπερφιλελεύθερων» επιλογών.   [6] αποπολιτικοποίηση Γι’ αυτό ακριβώς και η στρατηγική που ακολουθούν οι ΜΚΟ και οι περισσότερες εθελοντικές οργανώσεις είναι η διατύπωση προτάσεων σε προβλήματα κοινωνικής «παθογένειας» με τη μορφή τεχνικών οδηγιών σε θεσμικό επίπεδο. Αυτό το στοιχείο είναι που επιτρέπει στο νεοφιλελεύθερο κράτος να παρουσιάζει τον εθελοντισμό ως μια διέξοδο προς την ενεργή αντιμετώπιση των «κοινωνικών προβλημάτων». Προβλήματα δηλαδή, που έχουν απολυμανθεί από κάθε πολιτική διάσταση για να μετατραπούν σε ζητήματα κοινωνικής παρέμβασης των πιο «προοδευτικών» πολιτών που με τη δράση τους, στην ουσία, στηρίζουν και νομιμοποιούν ακόμα περισσότερο το αστικοδημοκρατικό καθεστώς. Η ιδεολογία αυτή έτσι μπορεί και στρέφει μεγάλα κομμάτια των πιο ευαίσθητα κοινωνικά κατηγοριών προς τα κοινά, «επαναπολιτικοποιώντας» με μια έννοια τις κατηγορίες αυτές, με τρόπο όμως που η πρακτική αυτή να μένει δέσμια της λογικής της κοινωφελούς προσφοράς στη θέση της συλλογικής διεκδίκησης και της ανάπτυξης ανταγωνιστικών πρακτικών. Κύριος τρόπος λειτουργίας αυτής της μορφής συμμετοχής είναι οι ομάδες πίεσης, τα λόμπι, που προσπαθούν να πετύχουν τους στόχους τους με την άσκηση διαφόρων μορφών πιέσεων στον κρατικό μηχανισμό, επηρεάζοντας έτσι τη χάραξη του πολιτικού σχεδιασμού [7] συμπλήρωμα στο βιογραφικό Κεντρική συνιστώσα στη λειτουργία των εθελοντικών οργανώσεων είναι ο ρόλος των ίδιων των εθελοντών. Η κοινωνικοοικονομική σύνθεση της κατηγορίας από την οποία απαρτίζονται οι εθελοντές αφορά κυρίως μικρομεσαία, μεσαία και μεσοανώτερα στρώματα του δυτικού πληθυσμού που διαθέτουν ανώτερη ή ανώτατη εκπαίδευση. Αν και δε διαθέτουμε επαρκή στοιχεία πάνω στο θέμα αυτό ωστόσο, οι περισσότερες ενδείξεις δείχνουν πως σε εθελοντικές οργανώσεις δραστηριοποιούνται άτομα από μεσαίες τάξεις, που διαθέτουν αρκετό ελεύθερο χρόνο παρά άτομα από χαμηλότερα στρώματα. Βασικό ρόλο ανάμεσά τους παίζουν οι κατηγορίες των φοιτητών, των νέων στην αναζήτηση ενός πρώτου επαγγέλματος, των ανέργων, ενώ όσον αφορά τον παράγοντα φύλο, η συμμετοχή των γυναικών είναι σημαντική. [8] αποενοχοποίηση και περισσότερη συντηρητικοποίηση Η πρακτική των εθελοντών δε συνδέεται με τη φιλανθρωπία, ούτε αποτελεί μετεξέλιξη της φιλανθρωπίας, γιατί η εθελοντική προσφορά δεν έχει σκοπό απλά και μόνο να προσφέρει οίκτο ή να απαλύνει τον πόνο, αλλά να επηρεάσει τις εξελίξεις και να λάβει ενεργά μέρος στη λήψη των αποφάσεων. Έτσι, ο εθελοντισμός προσφέρει, πέρα από ένα αίσθημα κοινού ανήκειν και μιας ταυτότητας στους συμμετέχοντες, τη δυνατότητα παρέμβασης σε επιμέρους ζητήματα. Η προσφυγή στην άμεση δράση προβάλλεται από πολλούς εθελοντές ως η απάντηση στην αδράνεια, τον ατομικισμό της καταναλωτικής ζωής και τις υλιστικές αξίες της οικονομίας της αγοράς. Η βασική, όμως, ιδεολογική γραμμή του εθελοντισμού είναι κατά πρώτο λόγο η αστικο-δημοκρατική ιδεολογία της συμμετοχής σε κοινωνικά ζητήματα. Σε αντίθεση με μια σειρά από μεταφυσικές αναζητήσεις, όπως εκείνη της εσωτερικής πνευματικότητας, της ενδοσκόπησης και των άλλων ατομικιστικών πρακτικών που προσφέρει σήμερα το σύστημα ως καταφύγιο από κάθε είδους ενοχές και τύψεις, ο εθελοντισμός επιτρέπει την ενεργή συμμετοχή τόσο σε ομάδες πίεσης όσο και σε ακτιβιστικού τύπου ενέργειες, οι οποίες λειτουργούν αποενοχοποιητικά για τους εθελοντές στη βάση της εκπλήρωσης ενός κοινωνικού καθήκοντος. Ξαναβρίσκουμε ακριβώς εδώ, την πιο απολιτική όψη της ιδεολογίας του ακτιβισμού που κινητοποιεί στη βάση συναισθηματικών ταυτίσεων και μανιχαϊστικών λογικών (οι «κακοί» πολιτικοί, οι «κακές» �2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ πολυεθνικές, οι «ανυποψίαστοι αλλά καλοί» άνθρωποι, κ.ο.κ) που δεν κάνουν τίποτα άλλο παρά να μυστικοποιούν ακόμα περισσότερο τις σχέσεις κυριαρχίας και εκμετάλλευσης και παράλληλα να αδειάζουν το περιεχόμενό των σχέσεων αυτών από κάθε πρακτικό πολιτικό προσανατολισμό. Παραμένοντας η ιδεολογία αυτή μυωπικά προσκολλημένη στην αντιμετώπιση του επιμέρους, προσπαθεί να συνδέσει κάθε ενέργεια με ένα άμεσο αποτέλεσμα, είτε ασκώντας πιέσεις σε διάφορους «επιβλαβείς» θεσμούς ή «ζημιογόνες» εταιρίες, είτε μέσα από την προσφυγή σε διάφορες νομικίστικες οδούς. Πρακτικές δηλαδή που αναπαράγουν την παραπλανητική εντύπωση πως η λύση των προβλημάτων είναι πρώτα και κύρια ζήτημα τήρησης ή εφαρμογής κάποιων κανόνων (αν όχι νόμων). Για παράδειγμα, το «περιβαλλοντικό πρόβλημα», αφού συρθεί πρώτα στο χώρο της «οικολογίας» ξεκομμένο από τα ευρύτερα πολιτικά, κοινωνικά ζητήματα, μετατρέπεται κατόπιν σε ζήτημα εφαρμογής της συνθήκης του Κιότο ή χρησιμοποίησης «εναλλακτικής» αντιρρυπαντικής τεχνολογίας ή ακόμα και σε ατομικιστικό πρόβλημα (χρησιμοποίηση π.χ. του ποδηλάτου για τη μετακίνηση στις μεγαλουπόλεις στη θέση των Ι.Χ). Πρακτικές δηλαδή, οι οποίες, στην ουσία, βοηθούν ακόμα περισσότερο το σύστημα να ξεπεράσει τα προβλήματα που το ίδιο έχει προκαλέσει μετατοπίζοντας την παραγωγή και την κατανάλωση σε άλλου είδους λύσεις γιατί ποιος είπε εξάλλου πως δεν υπάρχουν νέες «εναλλακτικές» προτάσεις, που εποφθαλμιούν μια θέση στην αγορά, από πολλές πολυεθνικές που λανσάροντας φιλικά προς το περιβάλλον προϊόντα καθησυχάζουν τους πελάτες τους στο να συνεχίσουν να καταναλώνουν απερίσπαστοι και χωρίς ενοχές; [9] περισσότεροι διαχωρισμοί, περισσότερος ατομικισμός Η λογική της άμεσης δράσης, βασική συνιστώσα της εθελοντικής πρακτικής και ιδεολογίας αναθέτει με έναν πολύ ιδιαίτερο κοινωνικό ρόλο τους ίδιους τους συμμετέχοντες. Τον κοινωνικό ρόλο που ονομάζεται «εθελο- ντής», δηλαδή το πιο προωθημένο μέλος της κοινωνίας, ο υπερασπιστής φιλελεύθερων δικαιωμάτων και ο εισηγητής των πιο προοδευτικών ιδεών και αντιλήψεων. Μια αντίληψη που δεν κάνει τίποτα άλλο από το να θέτει νέους διαχωρισμούς στο επίπεδο της δράσης. διαχωρισμούς δηλαδή μεταξύ μιας πρωτοπορίας ειδικών της άμεσης δράσης που αναλαμβάνουν ενέργειες και πρωτοβουλίες και των πιο παθητικών, υποτίθεται, κομματιών της κοινωνίας. Χωρίς αμφιβολία, η αντίληψη του ειδικού ρόλου του εθελοντή μέσα στην κοινωνία επιτείνει ακόμα περισσότερο τη συντηρητικοποίηση και συντηρεί την παθητικότητα εφόσον δημιουργεί την ψευδαίσθηση πως για κάθε πρόβλημα υπάρχει ο ειδικός που την κατάλληλη στιγμή θα κλιθεί να προσφέρει, ενώ οι υπόλοιποι μπορούν να συνεχίσουν απερίσπαστοι ό,τι έκαναν και πριν. Οι συμβολικές και θεαματικού τύπου ενέργειες που χρησιμοποιούν πολλοί εθελοντές προκειμένου να περάσουν το μήνυμά τους στην κοινωνία αναπαράγουν έστω κι αν δεν είναι αυτή η πρόθεσή τους αυτήν ακριβώς την αντίληψη, οδηγώντας έτσι σε μορφές δράσης που κατατάσσονται στο ενεργητικό τους ως πράξης αυτοθυσίας και αυταπάρνησης, αλλά που δεν προάγουν εντέλει την υπευθυνότητα, τη συνέπεια και τη συνειδητοποίηση γιατί οι σκοποί για τους οποίους αγωνίζονται διαχωρίζονται πλήρως από την καθημερινή πρακτική. Την ιδεολογική σημασία αυτού ακριβώς του γεγονότος την έχουν κατανοήσει πολύ καλά τ’ αφεντικά σήμερα και για το λόγο αυτό σπεύδουν να καρπωθούν τη συμμετοχή των εθελοντών σε πλήθος δραστηριοτήτων και εργασιών παρουσιάζοντάς τους ως «ήρωες». Η ηρωοποίηση ακριβώς αυτή είναι που κάνει σήμερα ιδιαίτερα ελκυστική την εθελοντική ιδεολογία της προσφοράς στα μυαλά πολλών ευαίσθητων μικροαστών και μεσοαστών. Η ηρωοποίηση, που ως ιδεολογία κάνει την εμφάνισή της με το τέλος των μεταφυσικών παραστάσεων και των υπερβατικών ιδεολογιών προβάλλεται από την κυριαρχία σήμερα ως μια ατομικιστική διέξοδος σε προβλήματα που έχουν τεθεί από την ίδια την κοινωνική οργάνωση δημιουργώντας την αυτα- πάτη της αυτονομίας και της προσωπικής αυτοπραγμάτωσης. Και αυτό γιατί ο εθελοντής, ως το υπερυποκείμενο εκείνο που είναι σε θέση να φέρει σε πέρας δύσκολες αποστολές θέτοντας σε κίνδυνο ακόμα και τη ζωή του σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις, μπορεί και αντιπαρέρχεται τα προβλήματα στηριζόμενος απλά και μόνο στη θέλησή του για προσφορά. Όσο μάλιστα πιο ειλικρινής και ανιδιοτελής είναι η εθελοντική προσφορά τόσο περισσότερο αναμφισβήτητα παρουσιάζονται τ’ αποτελέσματά της μιας και εμφανίζονται ως ενισχυτικά των αξιών του συστήματος: ελευθερία και ίσες ευκαιρίες. Έτσι, οι αντιφάσεις και οι συγκρούσεις που διατρέχουν το σύστημα απ’ άκρη σ’ άκρη ταχυδακτυλουργικά εξαφανίζονται για να μετατραπούν σε ζητήματα, απλά και μόνο, ατομικής επιλογής και προσφοράς. Επίλογος Ε ΞΕΤΑΣΑΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ, όπως και κάθε φαινόμενο άλλωστε, σαν φαινόμενο κοινωνικό και ιστορικό. Σαν μια συνθήκη δηλαδή, που προέκυψε ως προϊόν της σύγκρουσης ανταγωνιστικών δυνάμεων, ως προϊόν ανταγωνιστικών κοινωνικών σχέσεων. Αν μη τι άλλο, αυτός ο τρόπος αντίληψης των πραγμάτων, έχουμε την βαθιά πεποίθηση ότι μας απαλλάσσει από την μονομερή αντίληψη του φαινομένου, που σαν τέτοια είναι εξορισμού λανθασμένη. Τελειώνοντας, να υπενθυμίσουμε ότι η ανάλυση μας δεν φιλοδοξεί να στεφανωθεί με κοινωνιολογικές δάφνες, τις οποίες άλλωστε σιχαινόμαστε. Στόχος μας εξαρχής ήταν μια στο μέτρο του δυνατού από τα κάτω ανάγνωση και κατανόηση της νεοφιλελεύθερης μορφής κράτος και του τρόπου με τον οποίο αρθρώνεται ο εθελοντισμός με αυτήν, υπό ένα πρίσμα που θα ανοίγει ταυτόχρονα τους ορίζοντες για μια κριτική και ριζική αντιπαράθεση μαζί της. Ή για να είμαστε πιο μετριοπαθείς, υπό ένα πρίσμα που θα ανιχνεύει την δυνατότητα διάνοιξης αυτών των οριζόντων. αλληλεγγύη όχι εθελοδουλεία � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Broșuri secolul XXI (2001-20xx) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 2-3 ΠΡΆΓΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΞΈΡΟΥΜΕ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ (2014) Subject The topic of the resource ΕΞΕΤΑΣΑΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΙΣΜΌ, όπως και κάθε φαινόμενο άλλωστε, σαν φαινόμενο κοινωνικό και ιστορικό. Σαν μια συνθήκη δηλαδή, που προέκυψε ως προϊόν της σύγκρουσης ανταγωνιστικών δυνάμεων, ως προϊόν ανταγωνιστικών κοινωνικών σχέσεων. Αν μη τι άλλο, αυτός ο τρόπος αντίληψης των πραγμάτων, έχουμε την βαθιά πεποίθηση ότι μας απαλλάσσει από την μονομερή αντίληψη του φαινομένου, που σαν τέτοια είναι εξορισμού λανθασμένη. Τελειώνοντας, να υπενθυμίσουμε ότι η ανάλυση μας δεν φιλοδοξεί να στεφανωθεί με κοινωνιολογικές δάφνες, τις οποίες άλλωστε σιχαινόμαστε. Στόχος μας εξαρχής ήταν μια στο μέτρο του δυνατού από τα κάτω ανάγνωση και κατανόηση της νεοφιλελεύθερης μορφής κράτος και του τρόπου με τον οποίο αρθρώνεται ο εθελοντισμός με αυτήν, υπό ένα πρίσμα που θα ανοίγει ταυτόχρονα τους ορίζοντες για μια κριτική και ριζική αντιπαράθεση μαζί της. Ή για να είμαστε πιο μετριοπαθείς, υπό ένα πρίσμα που θα ανιχνεύει την δυνατότητα διάνοιξης αυτών των οριζόντων. Description An account of the resource ΕΘΕΛΟΝΤΕΣ; ΧΡΗΣΙΜΟΙ. ΣΕ ΠΟΙΟΝ; Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Creiereală Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived https://creiereala.wordpress.com/suplimente/voluntariat/ Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Creiereală Language A language of the resource greacă / greek Type The nature or genre of the resource broșură Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Cluj, 2014 2014 Creiereală greacă voluntariat