[machine translation]
It evoked in a previous article on the social work: Fioraso law has had the expected
consequences. The extent of the bonus courses over two months ducts is a scarcity of land
for student internship ? e ? s social work because the structures lack the means to
accommodate gratifiables students. ---- This is the scene set. Now, what is a worker ? e ?
s ? e ? e social? To provide elements of libertarian response, explain, at first, the
extent to which opposes the action of the State in the social field. In a second step, we
analyze the action of the worker is ? ? ? s social ales. ---- An attractive state system,
but reject ---- The State intervenes in various fields of social and medico-social as
disability, housing, the fight against poverty, against exclusion... Consider the gateway
issue of poverty, complex process that we will not detail here, because it is not the
subject of our analysis. Even if we consider simply that poverty results malfunction of
society.1, we do not want to see the government play any role in the fight against
poverty. This position may shock in that it seems (ultra) liberal; or we are not liberal ?
ales.
Indeed, liberalism seeks to limit the action of the State, particularly in the economic
field. But if we deny the intervention of the state, it is because we are against the very
existence of the state. Now specify that we do not oppose the increase of the minimum wage
or RSA or the creation of additional places in residential homes. These measures taken by
the State (the State itself or decentralized as regions, departments, institutions...)
seem just as they are in the sense of well-being and are a source of progress social. We
recognize in the claims of this type. However, they are not sufficient and do not
constitute an end in itself. Small social advances should be used to increase awareness of
the world in which we live, to increase class consciousness (the feeling of belonging to a
dispossessed class, dominated by the bourgeois class owns the means of production and
distribution ), and foster the emergence of revolutionary ideas and practices. It is
indeed organize themselves to bring down the bourgeois egalitarian system in which we live
and build a libertarian and egalitarian society by working and anyone who takes part in it.
To return to social progress, they are not an end in itself, because the risk would be to
run endless and achievable goal. For example, demand a salary increase allows to cope with
their costs and increase in various fields (food, health, housing...). But if the wage
increases and prices continue to rise, so it still takes a salary increase, which will be
followed by a price increase which need to be addressed by a new salary increase... This
endless race is inefficient economically and socially dangerous. ? e ? s busy chasing
least we think we do or even think at all to build a just society
That is why we believe any claim must be connected the desire for revolutionary change. We
are fighting for, or rather wrest social progress (currently it is more of struggle to
keep the gains), but we do not meet our current state system.
The purpose of this article is not to explain our anti-statist ideological position, we
will fast on this point. Basically, the state is a set of institutions, services to govern
a country (a territorial unit). It is a way of organizing society. It is the State taking
policy decisions. However, a characteristic of the state is to be played by only a few
people. So everyone can not participate in the organization of social life. The state is
elitism and authority, two principles which we oppose. That is why we believe that the
State is not required and that can be very well organized without him.
Better life for better control
On the ground, the state needs to relay. Hence the existence of social workers and social
workers (TS). The role of TS is ambiguous. In what follows we assume that one or a TS is
honest and is constantly striving to help people experiencing difficulties (in reality it
is unfortunately true).
Listening is a fundamental action or TS. This is a rare quality today, especially because
the capitalist system has nothing to do moods of individuals. However, what is ironic is
that the individual is constantly boasted emphasized. Individualism is a characteristic of
capitalism. This system flatters the search for personal happiness, success in any field
(especially with the famous professional career, and sentimental). It must be the best or
e ? wherever possible, because anyone is in competition with all the others. It is
precisely this spirit of competition that we repels a ? e ? s other. Less able and less
formatted ? e ? s to compete can be found at the margin with those who refuse to play the
game of everyone against everyone. We understand that listening is not an asset in a
selective and elitist social organization. The distinction ? e ? s dominant / dominated ?
e ? s makes unnecessary the fact to pay attention to members of society. However, the TS
must demonstrate listening, as most of the people they meet and they starved to share in
what they and they live daily or temporarily. More approach - real - listening reflects
the desire to take into account the other, recognize that you ? other as a part of a
whole, part equal to all other parts of the whole.
The TS or also allows access to rights. Social struggles and the willingness of the state
to maintain a certain social peace or an "equity" in some cases, have resulted in rights,
that is to say, the opportunity to benefit from certain legal devices according to our
personal situation. For example universal health coverage, per diem, unemployment,
benefits related to housing, disability... Or to enjoy these rights we must assert the
claim, and the role of TS is to provide assistance to people who need to effectively
access rights. It is worth recalling, however, that the criteria for determining whether a
person may have access to a law are imperfect. Just illustration_: What differentiates a
person with funds below a certain level of another person whose income slightly exceeds
that level? Nothing, but the second will not be entitled to a boost because its resources
are greater than the threshold below which aid is possible. It "wins too," too bad for her!
By listening and access to rights, but also a daily accompaniment with line of sight
greater autonomy, the TS provide a better life for people. It is not for them and they
brag about it, but they can be satisfied and ? e ? s have an undeniable social utility.
Act for social peace?
In addition to the positive aspects of the action of TS, we find negatives or pitfalls. A
? e ? TS is obviously a residual ? ve state. The State adopts social arrangements that are
tools for working or TS. Those are loaded ? e ? s to apply, go to the people in these
devices. There is not much wrong with that, except that it is dusting. A dusting often
beneficial, but also to achieve social peace. Despite these and they, the TS are actors
and actresses that social peace. Social peace is when people will not open his mouth will
not, does not revolt against its living conditions. The perverse effect of this ephemeral
snow welfare, when she wants to fall, is to instill in each ? e satisfying its (low)
provided at the expense of global social change.
Group Haute-Savoie
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten