France, Alternative Libertaire AL #231 - Viewpoint: Alain Bihr "Friot, or emancipation minimum" (fr)

The sociologist Bernard Friot a major hit in the left in recent years with books like The 
issue of pensions (2010) The issue of salary (2012). In an article entitled "universalize 
the salary or wage delete? About The issue of salary Bernard Friot" published in June 2013 
on the site In contrast, our friend Alain Bihr, a sociologist and expert on Marx, rejects 
proposals Bernard Friot (see box below). ---- Libertarian Alternative: Can you explain why 
the proposals Bernard Friot on wages you seem questionable? ---- Alain Bihr: The first 
thing that struck me when I read The issue of salary is that any analysis takes place in a 
Franco-French framework. Apart from very few hints at the turn of a line, it is never 
mentioned abroad as if the French context was sufficient to address all issues.

Hence, from there, a pretty fetish with regard to certain institutional forms taken by 
this wage relation in France attitude, as if those forms were intended to mark the 
unsurpassable horizon of the wage. I think in particular what he says on social 
assessment, qualification, etc..

In your article, you put value in a number of confusions Friot in the use of Marxist 
concepts. They really pose problems when it comes to imagine an alternative to capitalism?

I did not understand why he was embarrassed all of a Marxist scaffolding, in which he 
takes his feet and breaks the mouth, to develop proposals that could very well develop 
without it. Unless you want to block in advance the discussion of that side and say, "You 
see, from a Marxist point of view, I totally unassailable!". I wanted to show that, from a 
Marxist point of view, it is totally vulnerable. But this does not detract from the 
relevance of its perfectly questionable policy proposals in the best sense of the term.

In this regard, the most important, in your opinion, would that Friot does not mention in 
his book.

Its proposals, which consist essentially universal two institutions, social security 
contributions and qualifications are factors to be taken into account in the discussion 
since we want to imagine what could be a process of socialist transformation of 
contemporary French society. It is true that there is among the various authors who have 
studied what it means to socialism as a transitional phase between capitalism and 
communism, a debate on what might be the place to keep it or not, in a First, market 
relationships and the market. But do immediately as Friot something that could not be 
overcome, it seems to be very questionable.

So, it does not include the other two terms are usually in complementary relationship or 
opposition to the market that are planning and cooperation. These are all questions that 
are completely ignored as if it was not part of the socialist issue.

The other unspoken Friot is that the system assumes that the entire gain is socialized, so 
a particularly favorable balance of power to the proletariat. Could we not do anything 
else such a power?

It is not only all of the gain but the entire value added (the newly formed value) it 
proposes to socialize, apart from the small part that companies will be allowed to keep to 
directly fund their investment projects. Impose would imply a relationship of forces that 
would immediately imagine exceed the wage, but that is precisely what it does not. There 
was in him the thought that the class struggle as it is conducted in France, appeared wage 
institutions would suffice to universalize, to radicalize and empower their capitalist 
matrix that muzzles today to make the levers of the emancipation of the workers. ---- You 
do not consider that the idea of ??a market freed employers employment constraints may be 
emancipatory? ---- Companies could use without paying individuals as they would paid 
through a salary for life based on their qualification, but could also get rid of from the 
moment they believe that these employees are no longer enough productive. It happens very 
quickly on the problems that could arise, such as: "why I would piss me off to work so I 
get paid?". He says it is a right argument that does not merit consideration, but the 
problem deserves at least to be better placed.

And more importantly, even if they escape and the anxiety of unemployment, employees do 
not always have much to say today about what is in production conditions, the forms in 
which product, the destination of production, etc.. As emancipation of the wage is quite 
low. This is the emancipation minima.

Interview by Renaud (AL Alsace)

Proposals The issue of salary

Friot Bernard offers to take all of the wealth produced by companies through three 
assessments: one to pay wages, the second to finance (interest) investment in the means of 
production and the third to produce and maintain the socialized means of consumption 
(utilities, housing, transportation, culture ...). Individuals would be given to a 
qualified majority (thus make compulsory national education up to 18 years) entitling them 
to a salary for life, regardless of their activity. The employee-es would be free at any 
age pass a qualifying event for a higher qualification entitling to a higher wage (the 
wage hierarchy would go from 1 to 4).

Companies, regardless of their status (collective, private ...), could therefore use the 
skills of these employee-es, available on the market, according to their needs. But the 
lack of activity does not alter the salary received.

This should get rid of what the author calls the "capitalist labor agreement" to replace 
it with a "wage labor agreement" that "does not eliminate the price nor the money nor the 
exchange: it eliminates the goods that is to say, the dictatorship of the time introduced 
by the measurement of the value of the production time"(p. 113)