A DiEM TV Christmas Special on mέta, the Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation; what we’ve done so far!
A DiEM TV Christmas Special on mέta, the Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation; what we’ve done so far!
Michael Albert’s statement:
For me, the defining institutions of capitalism are private ownership of productive assets; authoritarian control of workplaces; production for profit; a corporate division of labor wherein empowered employees dominate disempowered employees; remuneration for property, power, and/or output; and allocation by markets and/or central planning.
To my eyes, these capitalist institutions produce obscene inequity, vile anti-sociality, and soul crushing indignity. They impose stupefying, empathy destroying, democracy defiling, and world-ravaging economic conditions.
To my mind, this poses a paramount question. What new post capitalist economic features are essential to ensure that our future selves will freely determine the details of their future lives with dignity, equity, and social solidarity? Here are the defining features participatory economics proposes:
Advocates, myself included, claim that these five institutional aims, which we of course expect to see refined by future experience and augmented by diverse contextual policies and features that emerge from future practice, can together establish a classless, self managing, sustainable, and even aesthetic post capitalist economy that serves the fulfillment and development of all people.
Some advocates call this “participatory economics.” Some call it “participatory socialism.” But all its advocates, myself included, claim that these five proposed defining institutions can together serve as a flexible visionary scaffold we can refine and build on to help us traverse the road to winning a post capitalist economic vision. More, we claim that such participatory vision can inspire hope and sustain commitment. It can provide orientation to help us plant the seeds of the future in the present, win immediate gains in non-reformist ways, and traverse a trajectory of changes that avoids winding up other than where we wish to arrive.
Yanis Varoufakis’ response:
At the very heart of a heartless (and distinctly irrational) capitalist world lies the curious idea that the crushing majority who work in the corporations do not own them while the minuscule minority who own them can very easily not even know where they are located, let alone work in them. This gross asymmetry is the source of exorbitant power in the hands of the few to wreck the lives of the many, as well as of the planet. And it is not just a matter of unfairness. It is more a matter of wholesale alienation, as even the capitalists are condemned to live like sad bastards resembling guinea pigs running faster and faster on a treadmill, going nowhere.
So, it is a great relief that, here, I do not to have to argue about the need to terminate capitalism. That Michael and I are embarking from a common belief that capitalism must end in order to debate the type of feasible postcapitalism we want.
Michael traces the source of illiberty, inequality and inefficiency in the private ownership of productive means, which lies behind the elevation of profit to the only motive and begets the soul-crushing division of labour within a company as well as within society at large. Spot on! He is also right to propose a ‘productive commons’ and to point to the importance of a decentralised system of decision-making (extending beyond the workplace to the community, the neighbourhood etc.). Lastly, I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of participatory planning as a replacement of the power of bosses (capitalists or any type of ‘coordinator class’) to decide “who does what to whom”, to quote Lenin’s famous words.
But here begin our differences. Michael employs two words that ring alarm bells in my head: “equitable”, which he links to the remuneration of work (especially of ugly or dirty tasks); and “negotiation”, which he proposes as the basis for consumers and producers to decide, together, what must be produced and in what quality/quantity. My alarm is due to a deep conviction that both words are wolves in sheep’s clothing, hiding the prospect of new forms of domination and oppression.
Take “equitable”. Who decides what it is fair to pay you to go down the sewers, to maintain them? I suppose the answer is: the collective. Does the collective have the right to specify that you must go down the sewers for that wage without your consent? I hope not. But, if your consent is required, then the wage setting is not much different to a market mechanism, where the collective is your employer.
Take “negotiation”. This implies consensus. Which implies huge social pressure on a dissident to acquiesce to the majority’s view; e.g., to their rejection of a weird but potentially wonderful idea that the majority cannot wrap its mind around.
Personally speaking, I find suffocating the prospect of having to reach via negotiation a common understanding of what I must do and of what an equitable reward is for me to do it.
Before I suggest an alternative to negotiations, I felt the need to express, early on, this feeling of suffocation. And to ask our readers: Am I alone in feeling that authentic freedom requires not just the end of capitalism but also a degree of autonomy from the collective?
Michael Albert’s response:
Yanis, you say our differences begin beyond our both rejecting capitalism, advocating a productive commons, favoring participation in planning, and seeking to replace the “coordinator class.” But do we agree that to end coordinator class rule we need to replace the corporate division of labor with jobs balanced for empowerment? Do we agree that we should all decide our lives up to where our choices impinge on others, but from there on, others should have their self-managing say, as well?
You express alarm that I use the words “equitable” and “negotiation.” You worry that these words may hide new forms of domination. But “equitable” means we receive income for how long, how hard, and the onerousness of the conditions under which we do socially useful work. Why would that alarm you? The only thing equitable remuneration has in common with market remuneration is that in each you get an income. But with markets you get what you have the bargaining power to take. With equitable remuneration, you get what you and your fellow workers decide accords with your duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued work.
And regarding “negotiation,” I assume you agree that any economy will and should involve people acting jointly with other people. Doesn’t it follow that in worthy postcapitalism, a worker won’t just do or get whatever they alone choose? Call what they do together exploration, conversation, or negotiation, what’s the alternative? One person or a small class decides? Competition decides?
You don’t want people telling you what to do. Okay, but people telling you what to do seems a strange way to characterize decisions that you participate in. In any event, do you think there could or should be a society where each person would decide their own remuneration, their own consumption, and their own work, with no concern for others?
You say you find suffocating ”the prospect of having to reach via negotiation a common understanding of what [you] must do and of what an equitable reward is for [you] to do it.” In participatory economics no one tells you what you must do and you are part of who decides what is an equitable reward. You are a participant in society, not atomistically aloof from it.
You have a job. Suppose your workers’ council, of which you a full member, decides when the work day starts. It sets council agendas, it determines the composition of balanced jobs, and it decides how to apportion income among its workers. Assume mutually agreed sensible deliberation plus self-managed decision making procedures. Would that be suffocating? To achieve “a degree of autonomy from the collective,” participatory economics makes diversity a prime value and emphasizes the need to respect and even preserve minority positions. But shouldn’t post capitalist division of labor, decision making, remuneration, and allocation deliver goods and services but also solidarity, diversity, equity, self management, and sustainability? We haven’t yet explored how all that can happen, but can we agree it needs to happen?
Yanis Varoufakis’ response:
Michael: Glad that we are proceeding slowly, refusing to take for granted vague terms like ‘equitable’ and ‘just’ – terms within which all manners of oppressions and irrationalities can take refuge. Before proceeding, and in the interests of full disclosure, let me state it for the record that, from a young age and to this day, I have signed up to Karl Marx’s dismissal of equity (as a bourgeois notion) as well as to his antipathy to defining freedom as the right to make free choices as long as they do not impinge on others.
So, when you ask me whether we agree “…that we should all decide our lives up to where our choices impinge on others, but from there on, others should have their self managing say, as well”, my response is: No, we certainly don’t. Interdependence is a given in any social network. Thus, according to your definition of freedom, every Tom and Dick has the right to scream that Harriet’s choices somehow impinge on theirs. Who will adjudicate then? Tom and Dick, merely because they are in the majority (or any majority for that matter)? That is unacceptable.
You ask me why I am alarmed by your definition of equitable: “…Equitable means we receive income for how long, how hard, and the onerousness of the conditions under which we do socially useful work.” The answer is because I shudder to imagine who will decide what constitutes ‘socially useful work’. What happens if Harriet wants desperately to work on some new project that Tom and Dick consider ‘socially useless’? Or who gets to quantify how hard or onerous a particular job is? The majority again? Just writing these words makes my throat choke with angst.
You ask: “Do we agree that to end coordinator class rule we need to replace the corporate division of labor with jobs balanced for empowerment?” Sure, we agree. But, who gets to decide the job balance necessary for Harriet’s empowerment? My answer is: Harriet. No one else. Not Tom and Dick. No worker council should tell Harriet what is good for her to do, let alone decide on her behalf. Sure, they can chat about it in the assembly, on the company’s intranet, via all sorts of teleconferences etc. But, unless Harriet gets to decide what Harriet does, it ain’t self-management.
Naturally, the question then becomes: How do things that need to get done get done? I have concrete ideas on how to answer this all-important question. But, in the spirit of taking this conversation slowly, I shall begin by setting down five basic principles that enterprises should adhere to:
Authentic self-management: Participants (i.e., worker-co-owners) must be free to join at will, or to quit, work teams within the enterprise – and to pursue projects without anyone’s permission
Democratic hiring & firing: A democratic process must determine who is brought into the enterprise, but also who is fired (Nb. The right of the collective to dismiss a participant as a necessary counter-balance of authentic self-determination)
A basic income for all: Without an adequate basic income, to fire a participant is to jeopardise her capacity to live. This would vest too much power in the hands of the majority (within the enterprise) while, at once, making it harder to fire someone that deserves to be fired.
Democratic resource allocation: The collective decides how much the basic salary is, how much to spend on infrastructure (including R&D), the enterprise’s multi-year plan and, lastly, how much to set aside for annual bonuses (to be distributed according to a democratically agreed process)
Your thoughts?
Michael Albert’s response:
Yanis, self-management doesn’t mean Tom can’t do things that impact others. It only means everyone should influence decisions in proportion as they are affected. For self-management an affected group that decides some issue may be a whole council, a team, or even an individual. For different issues, self-management may need more or less deliberation and require different ways to tally preferences into decisions. You ask who will determine what decision-making methods and procedures workplaces use. The workers council, of course.
Make telegraph machines no one wants? Make wheels for vehicles no one drives? Consume all you want oblivious to what others want and to the size of the social product? No society can allow each person to decide these sorts of things on their own. So how do we make sure everyone gets a say proportional to how decisions affect them? If just you are affected, you decide. If just a group is affected, the group decides. And decision-makers always use procedures that best convey proportionate say.
So of course Harriet decides what job Harriet wants to do. But how? Harriet’s workers council assesses workplace tasks and apportions them into jobs balanced for empowerment. Harriet applies for a job she likes. If Harriet is ill-equipped for her preferred job, Harriet’s council won’t accept her application because her working at that job would be socially irresponsible. So, yes, Harriet chooses her job, but she chooses it from among jobs the workplace offers that she can do well.
Do you really think Harriet should instead “pursue projects without anyone’s permission”? That would imply that Harriet can utilize resources, inputs, and tools however she pleases. She need not be competent. She need not fit the environment of her workplace. She can waste tools, time, and space making telegraph machines no one wants. She can produce wheels for vehicles no one has. And what about other people with other ideas for how to use the tools, time, and space Harriet would be commandeering? I wonder, do we differ about how to combine individual freedom and creativity for each with individual freedom and creativity for all?
Switching to remuneration, you ask, “who will decide what constitutes socially useful work?” Well, does anyone want the product? If not, producing it was not socially useful. Did the production responsibly utilize resources, tools, labor, and other inputs? If not, not all the work was socially useful. Thus the whole population together decides what is socially useful via allocation we have yet to discuss.
Finally, the guaranteed basic income you favor is possible but not necessary in a participatory economy, though getting a full income while moving between jobs or if you can’t work is necessary—but a full income, not a “basic income.” I wonder if the democratic planning you favor is markets plus democratically chosen policies to mitigate market failings. If so, I instead prefer participatory planning without markets at all.
Yanis Varoufakis’ response:
Michael: To my question “Who decides if Harriet is allowed to choose her projects?”, you responded: “the workers’ council, of course”. To the question “Who decides what product or activity is socially useful?”, you replied: “the whole population together decides”. My gut reaction to your answers is a gut fear stemming from a natural dread I have of, as liberals and anarchists put it, the tyranny of the majority. Then again, democracy is only possible if the demos decides. The question is: Can democracy-at-work be made compatible with a degree of personal autonomy from what the majority thinks?
At this point in our discussion we need to set out concrete rules for the governance of enterprises. Here are five that I would like to propose:
i. Democratic planning
Competing enterprise plans are put forward by members, each accompanied by a full rationale. They include how many resources to commit to R&D, which product or technology to invest in, the level of remuneration etc. Members are given a long period to read up on each proposal, to debate them and to form preferences. They are then invited to rank the proposals in order of preference on an electronic ballot form. If no plan wins an absolute majority of first preferences, a process of successive elimination takes place (based on Australia’s ranked preference electoral system) to determine the winning Plan.
ii. Autonomy
Teams are formed (as per the Plan) by a democratic process that matches slots with applicants. No one is compelled to take a slot they do not want. Each retains the right to work, alone or in spontaneously formed teams, on any project she or he deems compatible with the Plan – without anyone’s permission.
iii. Remuneration
A basic salary is paid to all, whose level is decided democratically as part of (i) above. Additionally, the collective can set aside a sum for two types of bonuses: (A) Job-specific; i.e., the collective decides that an X% bonus is right, reflecting the job’s unpleasantness or high skills necessary. (B) Person-Specific; i.e., a reward for extraordinary services to the enterprise’s overall performance, atmosphere etc. For example, each member is given 100 brownie points to distribute amongst her colleagues across the enterprise. Then, the total Personal-Bonus kitty is divided in proportion to how many points a member has received from everyone else.
iv. The right to quit – and the right to a basic income
To be genuinely free and an authentic participant, a worker must have the right to walk away from a company if she feels the majority is stifling her. To render this right real, as opposed to theoretical, the worker must have an ‘outside option’. This is why an unconditional basic income (guaranteeing a life with dignity) for all is not an optional extra for the good society – but a fundamental obligation to its citizens
v. The right to fire – and the right to a basic income
At the same time, for the majority to be free from toxic individuals, the collective must have the right to fire (by democratic vote) a member abusing her autonomy – a right that the collective can only exercise if it knows that everyone has the right to a basic income guaranteeing a life with dignity.
Over to you.
Michael Albert’s response:
Yanis: I don’t think we have fully addressed each other’s views on self management or on people being free to do whatever they like. You say you “dread” the “tyranny of the majority.” I propose to preclude tyranny by minorities, by structures, or by majorities with self-managing institutions. You ask “can democracy-at-work be made compatible with a degree of personal autonomy from what the majority thinks?” I ask “what institutions can facilitate informed self-managed, classless decision-making as well as solidarity and autonomy?” To answer, I propose:
I claim these features provide an institutional scaffold on which anti-capitalists can add diverse refinements based on experience and circumstance.
You describe workplace “democratic planning” by which workers will propose activities for their own workplaces. I welcome your particular steps as possible interim goals on the way to a post capitalism. I agree they could also persist in some participatory economic workplaces where participatory planning would allow them to account for effects on and desires of other workplaces and consumers. Without that addition, however, I believe your workers would have no good way to mesh their proposals with others throughout the economy. If they were to instead use markets or central planning to promote a mesh, they would suffer horrible constraints and pressures.
For “autonomy” you propose that any work team should freely do anything they think appropriate. But surely each team’s and each workplace’s actions need to accord with what other teams and other workplaces do. I propose participatory planning to provide the needed information and context to attain that result.
For remuneration you propose steps workers could seek in a transition and could even choose for a particular participatory economic workplace, though of course other workplaces might reasonably opt for other steps. But don’t you agree that rewarding talents or bargaining power would have neither economic nor moral benefit and would create major income inequalities? Also, don’t we need to explain what determines the total income available for workers in a firm to disperse among themselves? In a participatory economy, the total available would equitably reflect the duration, intensity, and onerousness of the totality of socially valued work done in that workplace. Do you agree with that or favor some other basis for remuneration?
Participatory economy of course agrees with you that people should be free to quit a workplace and still receive an average income while they arrange for new employment elsewhere. Likewise, of course anyone who can’t work should get average income, and everyone should get medical and other agreed-on free goods. We agree too that workers councils can fire employees for good cause, but shouldn’t listening and correcting often preclude the need to quit or terminate?
This is an ongoing debate between Michael Albert and Yanis Varoufakis: more entries will be added soon.
“Green capitalism”, as a response to the ecological crisis and the crisis of unequal distribution of wealth, is an illusion: technological innovation alone cannot solve problems that are by definition unsolvable in the present relations of power and property.
This is the conclusion to which Vassilis Kostakis and Yanis Varoufakis jointly arrived, as discussants in the event “What comes after capitalism? A discussion on P2P and the digital commons” organised on Monday in Serafeio (Athens) by the Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation (mέta), continuing an effort to deepen the discussion on mapping alternatives to the present dystopian forms of social organisation.
In his presentation, Vassilis Kostakis, Professor of P2P Governance at TalTech and Faculty Associate at Harvard University‘s Berkman Klein Centerand a member of the P2P Lab cooperative, deconstructed the myth that competition and private initiative promote innovation and described the opposing vision of “cosmolocalism”, according to which the horizontal cooperation of producers on a peer-to-peer basis and the free movement of open technologies offers possibilities for strengthening local communities in dialogue with global realities; possibilities for the democratisation of production, “digital” and “physical” alike, as well as for countering climate change. At the same time, however, he pointed out the limits of these projects, to the extent that the business giants, at the moment the biggest funders of open-source research, are raising new “fences”.
As immediate objectives, however, he highlighted the need to fully utilise open source software in the public sector and to create spaces for the intersection of cooperative production and open technologies, in order to create a plurality of business and technological models; at a broader level, copyright laws need to be changed on a European level.
On his part, Yanis Varoufakis, professor at the University of Athens and secretary of MeRA25, reminded us of the role of state initiative and funding, as well as the cooperative logic in the creation of, e.g., the internet and wi-fi, up until the appropriation of new technologies by private “dinosaurs”, as has always been the case in the history of capitalism.
“We are not going,” he warned, “to simply experience a (r)evolution of these collaborative platforms that will push the capitalist system into the corner – quite the contrary. The only way for this kind of collaborative effort not to have the outcome of Robert Owen’s 19th century project, for example, is through the political action of political parties and movements, which, utilising the knowledge of the fact that these platforms can be more profitable than the capitalist ones, will clash relentlessly with the political, legal and economic aspect of the horrid predicament that private property is.” He further pointed out the importance of this debate for the realisation that technological progress is not identical to capitalism and does not presuppose it.
The particularly active participation of the audience in the Q&A showed the interest that the subject sparks and ultimately its politically crucial nature, encouraging mέta to revisit the issue soon, further focusing on the question of the “commons,” digital and otherwise.
The Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation’s working papers series, mέta Working Papers, publishes peer-reviewed interdisciplinary research that explicitly or implicitly explores aspects of our liminal times, of our transition towards postcapitalist futures — be they dystopian or utopian, or anything in between. We are particularly interested in the exposure of academic works-in-progress to an audience of postcapitalism-oriented thinkers.
mέta Working Papers welcomes solicited and unsolicited papers in English, Greek, or preferably both, on aspects of the nascent postcapitalist era and follows a single-blind peer review process. The Papers are on-line open-access publications under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND license. An indicative word count would be around 3.500-7.000 words. Our non-binding suggestion for references is the Chicago Style system, either notes+bibliography or author-date. Submissions must include an abstract. Authors must include a biographical note of 60-100 words. The editorial team maintains final discretion over publication of all content. Publication does not entail an endorsement of mέta Working Papers’ contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and mέta cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
The mέta Working Papers Board is as follows:
Editor: Dr Sotiris Mitralexis
Assistant Editor: Kostas Raptis
Advisory Committee
Dr Antara Haldar, University of Cambridge
Dr Kostas Kanellopoulos, University of Crete
Dr Athina Karatzogianni, University of Leicester
Dr Vasilis Kostakis, Tallinn University of Technology & Harvard University
Dr Lyndsey Stonebridge, University of Birmingham
Dr Nicolas Theocarakis, University of Athens
Dr Paul Tyson, University of Queensland
Dr Yanis Varoufakis, University of Athens
Dr Sissy Velissariou, University of Athens
Dr Mari Velonaki, University of New South Wales
Correspondence and submission: [email protected], cc’ing [email protected], with ‘mέta Working Papers Submission’ on the subject line.
Our latest mέta Working Paper is Professor Robin Hahnel’s Participatory Planning (accessible here), part of the “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” series under “Allocation.”
mέta Working Papers’ series “Towards (a Better) Postcapitalism: A Handy How-To Guide” publishes solicited policy papers on aspects of how would a non-dystopian postcapitalism look like. The series focuses on three ‘pillars’:
Production | Allocation | Decision-making
i.e., how could/would postcapitalist production be like (and who would own the means of production), what shape would the allocation of goods take (and which alternatives to the market economy may be explored), and what would be the main tenets of postcapitalist democracy.
In this latest paper, Professor Robin Hahnel addresses the second pillar, ‘allocation’, as participatory planning:
Earlier additions to the series include Yannis Papadopoulos’ mέta Working Paper entitled Ethics Lost: The severance of the entrenched relationship between ethics and economics by contemporary neoclassical mainstream economics (accessible here):
More to come: watch this space.
‘Shouldn’t everyone receive a stake in society’s wealth? Could we create a fairer world by granting a guaranteed income to all? What would this mean for our health, wealth and happiness?’
The Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation, mέta, organised on Tuesday 21 September 2021 a discussion between Guy Standing and Yanis Varoufakis on the necessity of Basic Income – And How We Can Make It Happen. Moderation: Sotiris Mitralexis. The event was co-organised by mέta, Athens’ Numismatic Museum and Papasotiriou Publishing, apropos the publication of Guy Standing’s book ‘Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen’ in Greek (Papasotiriou 2021, foreword by Yanis Varoufakis). You can watch the video here – in English, with Greek subtitles.
From 12 to 22 July 2021, after months of confinement and enforced cultural ‘eclipse’, mέta set up a feast on the road with six stops throughout Greece: Athens, Patras, Ioannina, Kavala, Thessaloniki and Volos; our ‘boulouki’, or mέta-troupe.
This video offers a glimpse of some highlights — …and its backstage.
Merging stand-up comedy with traditional music made otherwise, as well as ‘Karagiozis’ shadow theater with biting bits on current affairs, our ‘boulouki’ (troupe) attempted to reclaim the public square in times of crisis and the privatisation of our lives via lockdown, with free admission to our celebration. We have tried, in a sense, to reassemble the (physical, real) public space from the debris left by the pandemic and the government’s policies. At the same time, if there is one field that has been hit harder than any other during the pandemic, this is the artistic space, the cultural space. Artists have been declared more or less ‘superfluous’, their activity something like a ‘hobby’. Therefore, the capacity to professionally collaborate with distinguished artists from different backgrounds — music (Konstandis Pistiolis), stand-up comedy (Ira Katsouda and Dimitra Nikitea), traditional shadow theatre with a twist (Thomas Agrafiotis) — was also one of the tools of our ‘boulouki’, on a tour around Greece and not confined to Athens, our all-consuming capital.
The outcome exceeded our expectations: our artists gave their best, and the reception of our ‘boulouki’ by (literally) thousands of citizens all over Greece –who were clearly informed at the beginning of the event about the purposes of mέta and its connection to MeRA25– was touching. Our mέta-boulouki completed its tour of six stations all over Greece, organised a feast for every citizen with free entrance to the public, collective space that we were deprived of. Thomas Agrafiotis, Dimitra Nikitea, Ira Katsouda and Konstandis Pistiolis starred in a ‘boulouki’ of music, laughter, critical gaze, and re-examination of the tradition of our country in a future-oriented perspective. We warmly thank the artists, those who supported and helped us, as well as all those who accepted our invitation and participated in our celebration. There is much more to come!
Credits: Filming & Directing: George Moustakis // Additional shots: Dimitris Zografakis // Boulouki-performers: Kostandis Pistiolis: Singing, winds, strings, percussions, live looping // Ira Katsouda, Dimitra Nikitea: Stand up comedy // Thomas Agrafiotis: Shadow Theatre; Assistant: Anna Sakaretsanou // Nikos Spyropoulos: Sound Recording // Nikos Christogiannopoulos: Assistant Sound Engineer // Kostis Marangos: Lightning Designing // Miltos Lyssikatos: Lights Operator // ‘Boulouki’ production: Nikos Kanarelis: Cultural Director // Sotiris Mitralexis: Academic Director // Mariza Kourtikaki: tour manager-production manager // Hara Ioannou: Scenography and poster design // Kostas Raptis: Press Officer // Georgia Zoupa: Assistant Contact Person // Arianna Vagourdi, Doris Hakim: Secretarial Support // We are profoundly grateful to the volunteers who supported us in all cities. Their invaluable help was of essence to the successful outcome we all enjoyed. // mέta productions.
In such a bewildered summer but also amidst an urgent need for extroversion, after the experience of many months of confinement, meta … is on the road. Overcoming the organizational barriers that the pandemic raises, it invites us to meet again, to shake off discouragement, to speak in the language of our vision of another society, and to support the culture workers who have been tested as never before.
The Centre for Postcapitalist Civilisation (mέta), the newly established organization of academic and cultural activities associated with MeRA25, DiEM25 and the Progressive International, is carrying out an artistic journey with six stations throughout Greece in July.
We choose the “theatre on the road” (Boulouki) putting in our luggage older and newer forms of art to be able to impact on the public.
In this opening up to different Greek cities we include the followIng artists:
Free admission everywhere.
We are looking forward to welcoming you!
July 12: Tritsi Park, Attica
July 14: Palaia Sfageia, Patras
July 15: Frontzos, Ioannina
July 19: Akontisma, Kavala
July 20: Aretsou Beach, Thessaloniki
July 22: Lab art yard, Volos
Reservations of free tickets at ticketservices:
https://www.ticketservices.gr/event/meta-mpoulouki/?lang=el
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
| cookielawinfo-checbox-functional | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". | |
| cookielawinfo-checbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
| cookielawinfo-checbox-others | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. | |
| cookielawinfo-checbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Advertisement". | |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". | |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". | |
| viewed_cookie_policy | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| __atuvc | This cookie is set by Addthis to make sure you see the updated count if you share a page and return to it before our share count cache is updated. | |
| __atuvs | This cookie is set by Addthis to make sure you see the updated count if you share a page and return to it before our share count cache is updated. |
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| uvc | The cookie is set by addthis.com to determine the usage of Addthis.com service. |
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| loc | This cookie is set by Addthis. This is a geolocation cookie to understand where the users sharing the information are located. |
