Hulot, Minister at 100 Liters on time?

[Grelinette]

Hello,

As stated Albert Einstein: We do not solve a problem with the thought patterns that gave rise to it".

It is in my opinion the error of Nicolas Hulot who entered the political machine at the origin of the many faults that she says she wants to solve, and for which Nicolas Hulot was in charge. It's a paradox, one more!

When he said yesterday on France-Inter "we strive to maintain or even revive an economic, commercial model, which is the cause of all these disorders", he is in a very delicate situation because he is an integral part of" this economic model "that he denounces.

What is more, it is a pure product ... and always a representative cog: it is, moreover, it was said, one of the richest ministers of this government, for having known how to use effectively. . "this economic and commercial model", yet so deleterious.

Another paradox is his statement to justify his resignation: "... we have to change the paradigm ...": when entering politics he suspected that he would have to comply with the rules and put up with the pretenses, half-measures, small steps and other hypocrisies (and incidentally to do with the lobbyists) which make the bases of politics, so he actually accepted "the current political and economic paradigm".

What to do to change the paradigm, the way of thinking, to act effectively for the benefit of ecology?

This is the question that Nicolas Hulot must ask himself now (and that those who want to act must ask themselves) in an attempt to find solutions to the progressive decrepitude of the world.

The task is difficult, but if you have ideas ... http://contact.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/
(hoping to have him forward the mail!)

[Ahmed]

Did, thank you for your measured and non-polemical response.
There is one point on which I do not agree, and that is the confusion between "exchanges" and capitalism. Indeed, as soon as a species lives in a group, there is by definition exchanges (there are even interspecific exchanges), which does not necessarily establish capitalism, any more than a certain form of distribution of tasks. according to the aptitudes of the individuals or according to other criteria. Primitive societies were very egalitarian; It was only when they became more complex that sometimes very harsh forms of domination appeared, but here again no form of capitalism, even if we observe unequal exchanges and the accumulation of material and symbolic goods. In reality, various dominations structured societies according to criteria other than those we know and that we tend to throw back anachronistically into the past.
In order to speak of capitalism, exchanges must be directed towards the accumulation of abstract value * for the purpose of reproducing the process (and not as, for example and closer to us, the wealthy Romans who do not stored it only to consume it lavishly), social relations must be structured by these exchanges to the point of transforming into a relationship between things.

* In traditional agrarian societies, the function of the exchanges was to procure what one did not produce oneself thanks to the surplus of one's own harvest: the result of the exchange was not to have a good of greater value than that brought to the market, but of a different and complementary quality. What Marx synthesized as follows: pre-capitalist exchanges MAM either merchandise for money (or not in the case of barter), for merchandise; capitalist system AMA 'is money for goods against a sum of money greater than the initial sum A.

[sen-no-sen]

What is traditionally called capitalism in fact corresponds to a threshold effect where the complexity of the systems and the multiplicity of exchanges generates an acceleration preventing a backward step under pain of collapse.

[Ahmed]

Grelinette, you write:

It is in my opinion the error of Nicolas Hulot who entered the political machine at the origin of the many faults that she says she wants to solve, and for which Nicolas Hulot was in charge. It's a paradox, one more!

This is not strictly speaking a paradox, but rather a form of oxymoron: the presence of N. Hulot symbolically justified the wishes expressed to solve the problems while at the same time avoiding to really tackle them, which would be in contradiction with the ends actually pursued.
It was a very clever maneuver to pretend to let go of the ballast by dropping the absurd extension of NDDL which in any case no longer interested anyone (except the ego of JM Ayrault, who no longer had any possibility of speak) to accredit the likelihood of this role. For Hulot, this passage under the gold of the Republic will give him a new stature that his resignation will avoid him tainting compromises: he is therefore a winner in both respects.

[Ahmed]

Indeed, Sen-no-sen, the notion of acceleration is central, because in previous societies a cyclical or horizontal vision of the world predominated, while with capitalism gradually appears an orientation of the arrow of time which is reflected in all areas of culture.

[Janic]

Ahmed
excellent analysis in all respects similar to mine. Besides, the longer he stayed in government, the more force and impact it gave to his resignation. Earlier, he would have been criticized for wanting to cut corners. However, none of the files important for the global ecology of France and the planet were taken into consideration and NDDL was only a nonos to chew on to avoid it biting.

[Ahmed]

Regarding NDDL, I wouldn't speak of "nonos à gnawer", because that would suppose that N. Hulot initially intended to change things profoundly (and therefore bite!), which evidence is not established and, if it were, would only reveal a naivety which I gladly exempt. It would be better to describe this pseudo concession as a simple propaganda tool intended to accredit the fiction of taking into account the ecological dimension.

[Did67]

Did, thank you for your measured and non-polemical response.
There is one point on which I do not agree, and that is the confusion between "exchanges" and capitalism. Indeed, as soon as a species lives in a group, there is by definition exchanges (there are even interspecific exchanges), which does not necessarily establish capitalism, any more than a certain form of distribution of tasks. according to the aptitudes of the individuals or according to other criteria. Primitive societies were very egalitarian; It was only when they became more complex that sometimes very harsh forms of domination appeared, but here again no form of capitalism, even if we observe unequal exchanges and the accumulation of material and symbolic goods. In reality, various dominations structured societies according to criteria other than those we know and that we tend to throw back anachronistically into the past.
In order to speak of capitalism, exchanges must be directed towards the accumulation of abstract value * for the purpose of reproducing the process (and not as, for example and closer to us, the wealthy Romans who do not stored it only to consume it lavishly), social relations must be structured by these exchanges to the point of transforming into a relationship between things.

* In traditional agrarian societies, the function of the exchanges was to procure what one did not produce oneself thanks to the surplus of one's own harvest: the result of the exchange was not to have a good of greater value than that brought to the market, but of a different and complementary quality. What Marx synthesized as follows: pre-capitalist exchanges MAM either merchandise for money (or not in the case of barter), for merchandise; capitalist system AMA 'is money for goods against a sum of money greater than the initial sum A.

OKAY. I quite agree, even if I don't know if from the outset there weren't any "rogues" who tried to nibble ... If the clever trout catcher didn't try to " better to exchange them "than the" big naive boar killer ". Or the opposite. It is in no way "founded", I have no knowledge of the subject but even if I had read Marx or I do not know who all along, I think he would have a little trouble with to admit that primitive man was egalitarian and that man has become unjust with capitalism. In my view, capitalism was born unequal because men are. But I admit it's purely intuitive. In other words, my conviction (which is therefore not proof) is that man is, in his soul, "capitalist" - we can compare this to his fears: to die, therefore to miss ...

I am therefore as suspicious of the primitive "perfect" man as I am of those who believe in the fable of the "honest poor man" (there, I experienced a certain form of "ferocity" of the poor among themselves, far from the myth of solidarity or a kind of primitive communism; I do not know if the book still exists, but to read the book of an English sociologist who described a famine among the Ickx [I'm not sure of the spelling anymore - can't remember the author; it won't be easy to find the book if it still exists; the search engine doesn't give anything; in a nutshell, it described , without intervening, like the Anglo-Saxon ethnologists, how people had come to devour each other!]

But what then do you call this "swinger" society that I call, wrongly I admit, "capitalist" (I agree that capitalism is the accumulation of abstract value) ???

[Janic]

Regarding NDDL, I would not speak of "nonos to gnaw", because that would suppose that N. Hulot initially had the intention of deeply changing things (and therefore to bite!), Which the proof is not established and, if it were to be, would only reveal a naivety of which I gladly exonerate it. It would be better to describe this pseudo-concession as a simple propaganda tool intended to accredit the fiction of taking the ecological dimension into account.

There, I do not agree with this point of view. Before being a minister, he would bark and bite what was within his reach, at the end of the chain (ecologist..MDR) obviously. When an animal is caged it can react violently or first examine how it can get out or live there as comfortably as possible ... while waiting.
The notion of naïveté does not seem appropriate to me, I would rather say under hypnosis (like the experiments of Messmer) He admits besides during his decision to resign that he does not want to meet the president for fear of being "taken" once again (it's like those who keep texting to avoid pressure and crying of all kinds, it's not elegant but extremely effective.) "trust me believe"
this is what Tapie said about Mitterand elsewhere! yet he does not pass for a guy to whom we could do this kind of number, but it worked!

[Ahmed]

Did, I would be careful not to say that the primitives were perfect, that is not my point and I do not propose their way of life as an ideal to pursue. I think that in a primitive society (as far as we know) "cunning" had no place for several reasons. I think that this type of society functions a bit like an anthill or a beehive * and that any individual appropriation to the detriment of the community was inconceivable; in addition, there is often a systematic redistribution, therefore both the impossibility and above all the pointlessness of trying to cheat. Finally, this type of relationship between people is very different from what we observe today, where rolling another is welcomed as a performance, from the moment the legal form is respected ... (when the we celebrate the winners or a particular company that has won markets, we deliberately avoid talking about those who are victims of these successes **).

* What some people accuse him of, but it is only a shortcut. We would have to agree on what freedom really is and what it supposes today as a prerequisite for alienation.
** An example about robotization: a manager explained that thanks to the introduction of robots her business had grown and contrary to what many claim in terms of attack on employment, she had carried out new hires; Of course, this is probably true on the scale of the enterprise (at least at an instant T), but on the overall level employment has necessarily decreased, in particular due to competing enterprises which are declining.

Janic:
N. Hulot is a showman, as I mentioned before, so nothing surprising about this behavior. He is someone who masters the media and knows what he is doing and when to do it. Political (and not political) ecology, if it can one day make its voice heard, can only come from below and has nothing to expect from any acrobat whatsoever.