WHAT DISTINGUISHES OUR PARTY – The line running
from Marx to Lenin to the foundation
of the Third International and the birth
of the Communist Party of Italy in Leghorn
(Livorno) 1921, and from there
to the struggle of the Italian Communist
Left against the degeneration in Moscow and
to the rejection of popular fronts and
coalition of resistance groups –
The tough work of restoring
the revolutionary doctrine and the party organ,
in contact with the working class,
outside the realm of personal politics
and electoralist manoevrings
Brexit - no way out for the British Bourgeoisie:
Falling EU immigration: a Pyrrhic victory for the populists - Ireland - The Need for a Working Class Response
ICP Intervention on Immigration: Against the attack on the conditions of all workers, natives and immigrants! -
Against the “Security Decree!” -
For a United Working Class Trade Union Front!
The
"Yellow Vests" movement started in France
at the end of October. The protest was
triggered by the increase in fuel prices,
partly due to the increase in the tax on
petroleum products. But the protests have
become an outlet for all the discontent
of part of the population against
the social and economic measures implemented
by the Macron government and
its predecessors. A good number of demonstrators
live where the use of the car
is a necessity, and therefore the continuous
increase in the price of gasoline
deprives them of part of their income,
sometimes dramatically for the poorest.
In fact, in one year the price at the
pump increased by 23% for diesel and 15%
for petrol (gasoline).
But
the economic crisis as well as
the slowdown in growth, affects the capitalist
world as a whole. The ruling classes
of nations are coming into conflict more
and more. Trump, a typical businessman,
is the court jester, proclaiming
aloud what all the world’s leaders
think in their heads: economic war,
exacerbated and increasing competition,
isolationism. This is scandalous
for some but their only ethical question
is how to conduct business and take
possession of increasingly large sectors
of the global market. Something which
is increasingly divided.
In
France, the government explains
that its economic policy and the "gifts"
given to the wealthiest citizens are intended
to revive businesses in a context of
economic crisis, where the bourgeoisie is
reluctant to invest. The increase in the price
of gasoline has been justified by the need
to finance an energy transition policy started
in 2015. Not a day goes by without the
media rehashing the sad degradation of
the planet, predicting an irreversible, even
catastrophic, effect for the survival of
humanity within a decade.
But
is it true that the ruling classes
are concerned about the future of the
Earth and are trying to prevent the disastrous
and even irreversible degradation
caused by the capitalist mode of
production? Or is it not rather a matter of
withdrawing money from the largest part
of the population, even if with difficulty,
to fill the coffers of the State, and
especially those of the companies and those
of the increasingly restricted part of citizens
who hoards the vast majority of wealth.
Marxism
has always said that the
State is at the service of the ruling class.
But government decisions do not depend
simply on the goodwill or intelligence
of the ruling class. They must serve
the ruthless economic mechanism of the
capitalist mode of production. To survive,
this system must constantly increase
profits, countering the inherent tendency
of the rate of profit to fall. This is
beyond the control of even the most powerful
individuals, as Marxism has stated
for some 150 years.
The
current movement in France
is spontaneous and was born outside
the political parties and official unions
which are considered "ineffective" by
the rebels. By comparison, the "Red Berets"
movement, which appeared in Brittany
in October 2013 in response to the
environmental tax on pollution caused by
vehicles, was triggered by the owners of
economically struggling agrifood companies
and was supported by their employees.
The
Yellow Vests movement, on
the contrary, started from the initiative of
a "motorist" who launched a call to mobilization
on social media, calling for a drop
in fuel prices. The call appeared in an
article of the popular newspaper "Le Parisien"
(October 12. 2018) and then found
great success gathering signatures (over
a million by late November). Local groups
have been created on Facebook throughout
France.
In
response, the Macron government
launched a campaign to fight against
air pollution a few days before the announced
blockade on the national road network,
which occurred Saturday, November
19. In Paris, blockades took place
around Paris but the repression by the
police forces limited the impact made by
the demonstrators. The Ministry of the Interior
reported the figure of 288,000 demonstrators
for the whole of France.
The
blockades continued for the
rest of the week and there were a few episodes
of violence. The movement extended
as far as Reunion Island in the Indian
Ocean. In the following days, the mobilization
continued with numerous gatherings
throughout France.
A
new national mobilization and
demonstrations were called for Saturday,
November 24. The Paris government
banned demonstrations on the Champs
Elysées but these took place anyway,
with clashes with the police. The Ministry
of the Interior finally provided the
figure of 166,000 demonstrators for the
whole of France, of which 5,000 were on
the Champs Elysées.
Events
and clashes took place in
the following days in many regions. On Saturday,
December 1, there were roadblocks
across the country – sometimes leading
to violent clashes with law enforcement
agencies. In Paris, demonstrations
on the Champs Elysées returned
with violence. Demonstrators also
graffittied the Arc de Triomphe (on the
tomb of the unknown soldier!!), set cars
on fire and looted shops. The Ministry
of the Interior estimated 136,000 demonstrators
throughout France. Clashes also
occurred in other cities.
On
December 3, students from roughly
100 high schools protested against
the planned reform of the high school
system, an increase in tuition fees for
foreigners, and joined the Yellow Vests.
But
who are participating in the
Yellow Vests movement? Mainly they come
from the outlying cities around Paris,
and from rural areas which have suffered
from being abandoned by the public
authorities (withdrawal of services as
well as abandonment of administrations).They
include industrial workers,
low‑paid workers
and independent
workers, pensioners, small bosses.
They are united by a general discontent
with the decline in their buying power,
and, for the proletariat, the suffering
caused by the precariousness and
degradation of their working and living
conditions.
An
economic crisis has shaken capitalism
for the last several decades. The
neo‑liberal policies
conducted by various
governments, both right and left, are
there to defend the interests and class privileges
of the big bourgeoisie. These policies
have led to the impoverishment and
precariousness of the French population.
According to older data, provided
by the National Institute of Statistics,
14.5% of the population lives below
the poverty line, i.e. with less than €850
per month. In 2018, the average income
per household in France decreased
by 1.2% compared to 2008, particularly
for 67% of the middle classes. But
even the most modest strata suffered a drop
in income. At least 20% of employees
are precarious and poor, and many
pensioners live on a miserable pension.
At least one third of the population
is suffering. This explains the anger
and violence.
So
far these conditions and the mistrust
of the official parties have only resulted
in mass abstentionism. Abstentionism
is now the largest working class
political party. "Why go and vote if economic
and social reforms will still be against
us?" The regime trade unions, after
repeated betrayals, have been sidelined
by the movement.
Of
course, far right and "autonomous"
anarchist groups have infiltrated
the movement and taken the opportunity
to vent their rage, for whatever
reasons. But these elements have
no useful political perspective. All they
have accomplished is to make it easier
for the government to justify repression.
But
there is also a mass response
here from people who are desperate
and feel abandoned by those in power.
Large sections of the working class
understand that they can make no progress
within the limits of permissible political
debate, and that violent bourgeois oppression
must be countered with mass action.
They have seen through the government
lie that the increase in taxes is only
there to finance ecological transition.
The
main labor unions have refused
to join the movement and are accusing
it of being the work of far‑right parties.
Only the transport section of Force
ouvrière (FO) has called for solidarity
with the Yellow Vests. The CFDT
put itself forward as a negotiator with
the government, saying it was time to recognize
that they were needed! To stamp
out the flames of the social struggle,
there are no better firefighters than
the big trade union federations!
In
conclusion, we will also join in
and call the Yellow vests a popular movement!
Term derived from the word "people"
that we have well defined in our text
of the Dialogue with Stalin (1952, 2nd
day: Society and Fatherland): "But the
people, what the heck is that? A mishmash
of different classes, an “integral”
of expropriators and slaves, of political
or business and the starving and oppressed
masses. Since before 1848, we left
the use of the word “people” to the associations
for freedom and democracy, pacifism
and progress. With its notorious “majorities”,
the people is not the subject of
economic planning, but merely an object
of expropriation and fraud”.
The
resumption of the class struggle,
after so many years of counterrevolution, betrayal
and disorganization, necessarily
passes through spontaneous movements
outside of any organization, since
everything has to be reconstructed. It
is only from the generalization of the spontaneous
but radical struggles of the proletariat
that class organizations will be reborn
and that a proletarian vanguard will
separate and enter the ranks of the Communist
Party.
Under
the current conditions it certainly
would not take long for a general strike
to break out. The trade union leadership
is on its guard to prevent this happening.
But they can only do this so long
as they are not overwhelmed by the crisis
of capitalism.
Large
sections of the proletariat
are obviously participating in the
Yellow Vests movement, but not as a class
for itself, only as part of this amorphous
"popular" mass. It is not organized
into militant defensive economic
organizations or led by a political
party – a communist
vanguard. Until
this comes about, the class struggle cannot
express itself directly and the proletariat
can only expect more disillusionment,
betrayals and defeats. Ultimately,
the proletariat must face the challenge
to take political power not just in
France but internationally, and this can only
be achieved with the leadership of the
International Communist Party.
The
draft withdrawal agreement between Theresa
May’s Conservative government and
the European Union, which at the time
of writing seems unlikely to get the necessary
backing of the British parliament
on 11 December, offers no solution
to the bundle of contradictions that
is Brexit.
Both
the ruling Conservative Party
and the opposition Labour Party are split
on the issue. But we will not waste time
on the complex parliamentary arithmetic
that makes virtually any solution
impossible. Nor with the debates about
a possible further referendum, or the
legal and constitutional wrangling. Of more
interest are the economic factors that have
created this impasse.
A
substantial part of the British ruling
class believed that Brexit was a simple
matter of walking through a door and
leaving behind regulations which, in its
opinion, were holding back the competitiveness
of the British economy. This
viewpoint, though false, reflected the growing
competition and rivalry between the
United Kingdom and most of continental
Europe, led by Germany, and the
misalignment of the economies, as Britain
has stayed outside the Eurozone.
The
reality is that the UK has not
passed through an open door but entered
a vast maze of uncertainty that offers
no obvious or easy way out.
Since
Britain dismantled much of
its unprofitable and state‑subsidized heavy
industry in the 1980s, its focus has been
largely on the services sector, which is
largely dependent on selling abroad. This
shift was only made possible by inflicting
serious defeats on the working class,
most notably the steelworkers (1980)
and miners (1984‑5).
These
developments have helped
British capitalism to attract inward investment
from many overseas firms wanting
to sell into the European Union. This
makes the job of extracting Britain from
the EU extremely complicated, so there
has been stiff resistance from many sectors
of big business to any Brexit that would
diminish free access to the European
single market or to other markets
via EU‑negotiated free trade agreements.
(Ironically it was Margaret Thatcher
who pushed hardest for the single
market, though today her nationalist rhetoric
is echoed by the Brexiters, who want
to withdraw from it, arguing that it benefits
Germany more than the UK).
Much
of the British economy is
intricately interwoven with that of the European
Union. To take just one example,
as frequently reported in the British
press: the crankshaft used to manufacture
the Mini (an iconic “British” brand
now owned by the German firm BMW)
crosses the Channel three times in a
2,000‑mile journey before the finished car
rolls off the production line. The same story
applies to many other components in the
Mini, as well as to components used in other
car plants in Britain.
The
UK is ranked second for Japanese
foreign direct investment and is a
major economic partner for Japan. In the automotive
sector, Japanese manufacturers
such as Nissan and Toyota represent
more than 40% of British car output
and 142,000 jobs. All of this depends
on just‑in‑time delivery and therefore
the friction‑less trade of the single
market and customs union. Other sectors
such as aerospace, scientific research
and pharmaceuticals also have a strong
pan‑European dimension.
Should
Britain leave the EU without
a deal, going onto World Trade Organization
(WTO rules), as favored by the
Brexiters, companies in these sectors are
likely to choose to divert future investments
to other EU countries.
Meanwhile
French and German
capital, in order to “protect the integrity
of the single market” (i.e. the interests
of the national bourgeoisies) have
threatened retaliatory action should the
UK try to leave and undercut EU capitalism.
For example, France has repeatedly
threatened border checks to disrupt
cross‑channel trade that would potentially
turn motorways in Kent, southeast
England, into a lorry park. President
Macron has also said that France
would ignore any British imposition
of coastal waters (the fisheries sector,
though insignificant in terms of British
GDP, has taken on huge emotional significance
for embattled Brexiters).
Meanwhile
Ireland and France have
been working to create new sea crossings
to avoid the UK as a land bridge.
And
that is just the situation for
manufacturing industry and physical trade.
Questions also arise over the future of
the services sector, and in particular financial
services. Although it accounts for
just 6.5% of total economic output and 1.1
million jobs, 44% of financial services exports
go to the EU and 39% of financial services
imports come from the EU. This business
also depends on compliance with a
whole raft of EU regulations.
Falling EU immigration: a Pyrrhic victory for the populists
These
are the considerations behind
the May proposal, which effectively
ties the UK to EU single market
and customs union rules for the foreseeable
future, while making some concessions
to the pro‑Brexit demands, notably
on the free movement of labor.
Immigration
was a key factor behind
the leave campaign, which was led by
populists such as Nigel Farage and backed
by capitalists who have little or no stake
in the European Union.
In
fact, there seems to have been
a “Brexit effect” on migration patterns.
Figures released by the Office for
National Statistics at the end of November
showed that net immigration from
the EU to the UK slumped to a six‑year low,
while non‑EU migration
is the highest
in more than a decade. There were 74,000
more EU citizens who came to the UK
than people leaving for other EU countries.
This was the lowest level of EU net
immigration since 2012. On the other hand,
non‑EU net migration was at its highest
since 2004, with 248,000 more non‑EU citizens
arriving than departing, the
ONS data shows.
The
underlying reality of course,
that immigration is largely driven by
the labor market. The scapegoating of immigrants,
along with all other populist arguments,
are merely expressions of the inability
of capitalism to offer any solutions
to economic decomposition (see our
article on sovereigntism in Communist Left
No 42/3).
Ireland
The
current draft withdrawal agreement is therefore
a messy compromise to buy the UK
time, during a transition period, to negotiate
a free trade agreement (FTA) with
the EU, while giving it a free hand to negotiate
FTAs with other countries and economic
blocs, notably the USA (though President
Trump has already signaled his unwillingness
to do the UK any special favors
if the UK agrees to the draft withdrawal
agreement. The fact is that the best
the UK can hope for at the moment is to
piggy‑back off
existing EU FTAs).
However,
the so‑called Irish backstop
could keep the UK tied by single market
and customs union rules for the foreseeable
future. This is anathema to Ulster
Unionists and to Brexiters.
Under
the agreement the EU and
UK agree to “use their best endeavors”
to have a future trade agreement
concluded six months before the
end of the transition period in December
2020, but that if this is not the case
the EU and the UK could “jointly extend
the transition period” for an unspecified
time.
Otherwise
the backstop solution
for Ireland and Northern Ireland, aimed
at preventing a hard border, would come
into force. The backstop, consisting of
“a single customs territory between the Union
and the United Kingdom”, will apply
from the end of the transition period “unless
and until... a subsequent agreement
becomes applicable”.
The
single customs territory would
cover all goods except fishery products,
the agreement says, and will “include
the corresponding level playing field
commitments and appropriate enforcement
mechanisms to ensure fair competition
between the EU27 and the UK”.
There
would necessarily be extra
non‑customs checks
on some types of
goods passing between Northern Ireland
and the rest of the UK, which will not
please the Democratic Unionist party.
On
exiting the backstop, the agreement
says that if “either side considers
the backstop is no longer necessary,
it can notify the other” setting out
its reasons.
Brexiters
have consistently argued
that Britain must be able to exit any
all‑UK customs
union as and when it wants
to be able to pursue free‑trade deals around
the world.
The Need for a Working Class Response
Thus,
at the moment none of the options can
possibly satisfy the British bourgeoisie.
May’s deal has received lukewarm
support from the City of London
and the bosses’ organization, the CBI,
but only on the basis that it is the “least
bad” option. Few want to crash out of
the EU without a deal. Another referendum
would cause more political upheaval,
while a complete reversal of the Brexit
decision would hand power back to Britain’s
economic rivals; the terms for returning
to the EU might be worse than they
are now.
All
of these “choices” must be seen
in the context of the global crisis of capitalism
and increasing national rivalries.
None of the bourgeois parties (whether
established parties or populists) can
offer a solution that will benefit the working
class in any way whatsoever. Any notion
that the economic integration or unification
of Europe through EU state institutions
could serve as the basis for socialism,
or alternatively, that there could be
a “socialist Brexit” is nothing but rank opportunism.
Now more than ever the British
working class needs to develop its own
class perspective in solidarity with the
working class across Europe and beyond.
Only then can we benefit from the
confusion and discord among our enemies.
The
only way out of the Brexit maze
is to burn it down, along with the rest
of capitalism!
A law nicknamed the “Slavery Act” has passed
in the Hungarian Parliament. This law
increases the annual overtime that capitalists
can impose on workers from 250
to 400 hours a year, or an extra hour a day.
In addition, these hours can be paid after
three years and no longer within a year
as currently. If a worker loses their job
sooner, they may not receive overtime pay.
In
addition to the slave law, it also
weakens collective bargaining by allowing
employees and companies to directly
negotiate overtime work. The minimum
wage in Hungary is €296 per month
and for skilled workers it is €388.
The
government argues that such
"flexibility" will reward companies which
invest in Hungary, especially the German
car companies, which have many factories
there. But of course, Prime Minister
Orbán’s ruling party has argued that
this law will benefit the workers as those
who want to earn more, can work more
and will be able to do so "freely".
The
working class, however, began
to oppose this law and took to the streets
of Budapest on 8 December. Thousands
of workers demonstrated to demand
an increase in wages and not in working
hours. Some demonstrators have worn
yellow vests, the symbol of the French
demonstrations.
Today,
the bourgeoisie, both right
and "left", in all countries, imposes its
ruthless dictatorship against the working
class. A century ago the proletariat
briefly drove the Hungarian bourgeoisie out
of power and proclaimed a Soviet Republic
and class dictatorship. By organizing
itself into strong class unions led
by its Communist Party the working class
will resurrect its dictatorship.
programmatic approaches and struggles from the International Communist Party
For the rebirth of the class union against regime unionism. We seek to unify working class demands and struggles. We are against any submission to the national interest. For the affirmation of the International Communist Party’s direction of the proletariat’s economic defense organizations for the purpose of the revolutionary emancipation of workers from capitalism.
On Immigration
At present, migration from Latin
America is among the most significant
political issues in the United States.
Donald Trump, now a self‑professed nationalist,
campaigned on a xenophobic
platform, and has enacted a slew
of anti‑immigrant measures
in his nearly
two years in office. Along with Muslims,
the primary targets have been the
aforementioned arrivals from the south.
This is not a new development: George
W. Bush was the first president to float
the idea of a border wall, inciting protest
and ridicule. Barack Obama subjected
more than three million people to
forceable deportation, at a rate even higher
than that under Trump. Obama also established
the practice of imprisoning children
and entire families in detention centers.
Trump created the infamous childhood
concentration camps which have
captured global attention.
Now
this immigration issue appears
to be headed for open confrontation.
A migrant caravan from Honduras,
now numbering about 5,000, has
made its way by foot, truck, and train to
the Mexico‑United States
border at Tijuana.
Organized by a left‑leaning group,
the migrants declare their intention to
seek asylum in the United States. The first
among them are currently encamped in
Tijuana, and have just started attempts to
cross the border. Trump has taken a typically
confrontational position. Declaring
the caravan an “invasion” and a threat
to United States sovereignty, he has dispatched
5,000 members of the army to the
border.
It
will be helpful, at this point, to
explore this political and humanitarian crisis
in the context of the bourgeois nation‑state’s basic
premises. This will reveal
the real nature of capital’s uneasy relationship
with human migration.
The
political unit of bourgeois society
is the nation‑state. No
action is possible
unless it takes place within the nation,
where the local bourgeoisie dominates
the exploited classes and poisons
their consciousness, or between nations,
where the various bourgeois factions
strategize as polities in themselves.
Within
the national political sphere,
the local bourgeoisie crafts citizenship
in its own image. The right of this
citizenship is, as Marx observed, the right
to be alienated from others and from the
material basis of one’s life, the right to be
alone with one’s property and one’s ideology
(“On the Jewish Question”). For the
bourgeoisie, politics is an annoying necessity
to guarantee the maintenance of a
state in line with their class reality. Where
the exploited classes are politically emancipated,
the bourgeois state creates for
them a politics based on vague movements
of petty egoists, fighting for their
right to the property their do not possess.
Nationalism, the most unifying movement
to emerge from bourgeois politics,
is really the militant definition of the
terms of isolation. It defines the largest unit
possible in which individuals may put aside
their differences in the name of shared
chauvinism.
On
a world scale, every nation‑state is
a community of self‑aware exploiters,
jetting around to the same places.
Where they fight, they do so self‑consciously, imitating
and one‑upping each
other.
As
we see, capitalism seeks contradictory
ends. It atomizes people within
the nation, but on the world stage it packages
them into homogeneous units, each
equally sovereign.
When
working class people from
impoverished regions decide, for their
immediate survival, to move from one
nation‑state to
another, they begin to unravel
this lie the bourgeoisie tells. It is a dispossessed
humanity. They demand, out of
desperation, that their most basic needs be
answered, showing by that act the callousness
of the ruling class that brought them
to that point. Each bourgeoisie fears that
these new departures and arrivals will upset
the balance of terror and illusory privilege
that keeps the proletariat in check
within each nation. It fears that the proletariat
will see in these migrants a mirror
of its general exploitation, and understand
the obvious: that it has no country,
and that it has nothing to lose.
Communists
must be unwavering
internationalists. We must demand
the immediate and unconditional admission
of all migrants workers appearing
at any national borders with the full
legal rights afforded to citizens. We must
also actively oppose all militarization
of the borders in our own countries,
and any imperialist efforts to impose
such measures abroad. We must organize
to interfere with any police efforts
to harass, arrest, or deport any fellow
foreign worker in our country.
Distributed at a Rank and File Union demonstration in Rome, Saturday 15 December 2018
Against the attack on the conditions of all workers, natives and immigrants!
Against the “Security Decree!”
For a United Working Class Trade Union Front!
For years the living and employment
conditions of workers have been
deteriorating, subjected to attack by the
capitalist class – national and international –
which hides
its dictatorship over
the working class through the false and
misleading democratic theater that only
serves to turn the puppets that are in the
government.
The
so‑called "security" decree,
recently passed by the right‑wing government,
reveals the true face of the ruling
class forced to reduce the so‑called "democratic
spaces" to divide the working class
and repress their struggles. It goes against
the struggles of workers, turning roadblocks
into criminal offences, punishable
by imprisonment of up to 6 years
(12 for the organizers), increasing the
penalties against the occupants of houses,
extending the prohibition of participation
in events. At the same time, it
attacks the unity between native workers
and immigrants, forcing the latter to
be illegal, eliminating the humanitarian protection
permit, the main channel for regularizing
asylum seekers; moreover, it doubles
from 3 to 6 months the maximum period
of detention in the Stations for Identification
and Expulsion and provides for
the revocation of the residence permit and
also of citizenship to immigrants accused
or convicted of certain crimes.
This
decree does not serve to reject
immigrants but only to make their situation
even more difficult and precarious,
to make workers more blackmailable
and therefore more exploitable,
with undeclared work, without
contract, without rules, for starvation
wages.
The
question is not whether to accept
or reject immigrants. Immigration from
countries devastated by the economic
exploitation of imperialist states that
produces wars, famine and hunger is an
unstoppable process that affects tens of millions
of people all over the world and there
are no walls or barriers that can stop it.
The
central issue for the proletariat
is to find unity in the struggle, to
unionize immigrant workers, to fight together
to overcome any division that may
foment downward competition between
proletarians, to demand for them the
possibility of having a residence permit
and citizenship to escape the blackmail
of employers.
Combating
racist propaganda by
opposing it with anti‑racist propaganda on
the humanitarian level, as the Church does,
is insufficient and can only lead to failure
because it means not being able to recognize
the true objective of the ruling class,
which is not the affirmation of the infamous
racist ideology in itself, but its use
to divide the working class, keep it oppressed
and exploit it more.
Immigrant
workers are a "resource"
for every national bourgeoisie as
long as it manages to exploit them more
than it already does with the indigenous
ones. But they are also a "resource"
for the workers’ movement in general
when indigenous workers and immigrants
fight together for the same class
goals.
The
winning ground on which to
respond to the attack of the boss and the
State is that of the struggle and unity of
the workers, above all divisions, for their
general class objectives:
- strong wage increases, greater for the worst paid categories;
- reduction of working time for the same wage, for the whole working class;
- full wage to the dismissed workers (not "citizenship income" linked to the acceptance of low‑wage jobs and therefore also useful to lower the average wage);
- lowering of the retirement age.
These
claims, because of their general
nature, have an intrinsic political value,
which is not that of being against a government
of this or that colour but against
the entire bourgeois regime. However,
they can only be carried out by a
strong trade union movement capable of deploying
general and extreme struggles.
For
this reason it is increasingly
urgent and necessary to overcome
the division that passes within the
grassroots unionism and of which this demonstration
is also a result having been called
by the Unione Sindacale di Base only!
The unity in the struggles of class struggle
unionism (in the rank and file unions
and in the class currents inside the Confederazione
Generale Italiana del Lavoro)
would in fact inflict a hard blow to
the wall that the masters want to erect to
divide the Italian workers from the immigrant
ones; it would be the best way to
give strength to the authentic class unionism
within the grassroots unionism and
to defeat its opportunist leaders.
The
capitalist economy is on the
verge of collapse because of the inevitable
crisis of overproduction of goods
and capital and the inexorable decline
in the profit rate. The only solution
available to the bourgeoisie of all countries
against the catastrophic blockade
of global markets is to unleash a new
war, a new world slaughterhouse to destroy
excess goods, putting the proletariat
of the different states once again
against each other. To this end, it is essential
for them to return to the nationalist,
populist, "sovereign" propaganda
that not by chance is beginning
to take root in every country and
that has among its pillars fear and hatred
of foreigners and immigrants.
The
importance of the international
unity of the workers’ movement
is also demonstrated by the movement
of the "yellow vests" that in recent
weeks has shaken France and that for
many false claims would even represent
the antechamber of the revolution.
In that movement the proletarians
are present only individually, they
are not framed in their economic organizations,
they are not led by their political
party. It is true that the resumption
of the class struggle, after so many
years of counterrevolution and betrayal,
can only forcibly pass through spontaneous
movements outside any organization,
but if the movement of struggle
does not give itself a class trade union
organization, claiming its proletarian
nature, and does not reconnect with
the party, it can only fall prey to the bourgeois
reaction and the workers will suffer
a painful defeat.
This
is also why unity among workers
in every country and beyond national
borders is vital, because it concretely
opposes nationalist and patriotic
propaganda with the practice of proletarian
internationalism, of revolutionary
and international struggle, above
all frontiers, to break down the regime
of capital.
The recent strike of postal workers
in Canada has once again exposed
the weaknesses of the present capitalist
situation. Logistics, including shipping,
warehousing, distribution, and computer
systems, is vital in an economy dominated
by offshore manufacturing and mail‑order businesses.
The month‑long Canada
Post strike had such a devastating effect
on capital’s ability to move product that
the state stepped in to break it. This acknowledgment
of workers’ power by the
bourgeois state should receive the attention
of communists everywhere.
The
Canadian Union of Postal Workers
(CUPW), with a membership of 50,000,
has been in contract negotiations with
Canada Post, the state‑owned mail service
corporation, since last winter. The negotiations
have centered on the significant
rise in parcels mailed over the past
several years (20 percent between 2016
and 2017 alone), which has drastically
increased the workload for postal
employees. This has led Canada Post
to hire more temporary workers (23.98%
of employees and 29.97% of hours
in 2017) and to impose mandatory overtime
on permanent staff. Overwork has
led to an increase in work‑related injuries
among postal workers. According to
the CUPW, “one out of every 12 workers
at Canada Post experienced a disabling
injury in 2017”.
With
no contract after ten months
of negotiations, the CUPW began rotating
strikes on October 22. Workers walked
out in different major cities on different
days over the course of the following
month. Though it stopped short of
a complete shutdown, the effects of the strike
were dramatic. By mid‑November, there
were 260 semi‑trailers of undelivered
mail at the Toronto processing
plant, and over 100 in Vancouver.
Canada Post was forced to reject
international shipments, and Canada‑bound mail
piled up in foreign airports.
Slowdowns on days when strikes were
not occurring in the different cities prevented
the postal service from recovering.
Bleating
from capital and its government
began immediately, and by the
middle of November had reached a feverish
intensity. On the first day of the action,
the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business declared, in biblical terms,
that “every time [postal workers] even
threaten a strike, more small business
customers move to use alternatives,
many never returning to Canada
post”. The message was clear: form
a corporate connection with the bosses
or become obsolete. eBay, the middleman
for independent sellers who rely
on primarily the postal service for shipping,
publicly called for the government
to ban the strike. Canada Post,
in the official press release coinciding
with its final contract offer on November
14, warned of “significant impacts
to the Canadian retail economy,” and,
on top of this, that “charities and not‑for‑profits still
use the mail for major fundraising
activities”.
The
strike’s timing was key to this
very welcome disruption. The CUPW announced
it on October 16, the day before
cannabis was to become legal in Canada.
Cannabis sellers, including the state‑run Ontario
Cannabis Store, received tens
of thousands of mail orders which they
could not fulfill, damping the introduction
of what is expected to be an economic
boom for the country. The strike
heated up precisely when businesses
and the shipping industry were preparing
for the Christmas shopping season.
Under
this tremendous pressure
from businesses, the Canadian government
took action. After Canada Post’s
November 14 offer was rejected by the
union, Bill C‑89 was
read before parliament.
It became law on November 26.
The strike was officially banned effective
the following day, with severe penalties
for the union and any union members
if they were to continue the action.
Rank‑and‑file members
could face summary
judgements of up to $1,000 per day,
union officers $50,000 per day, and the
organization $100,000 per day of non‑compliance. Non‑compliance could
be construed
in nearly any way the government
wished. While it maintained the
pretense of forcing both the CUPW and
Canada Post to comply, the real target was
clearly the union. The CUPW called off
the strike, while issuing an appeal for protest
from the public and other trade unions.
Protests occurred at postal facilities
across the country, some of which
interfered with mail processing.
The
Canadian postal strike demonstrates
clearly how much impact a relatively
mild labor action can have on the
economy if it takes place in a vital industry.
One can only speculate as to what
effects a complete stoppage would have
created, and what this would have done
for the postal workers’ position. Large
parts of the global economy are vulnerable
if the workers who connect them
take action in their own interests. Logistics
workers in Italy, Israel, the United
Kingdom, and Germany, among others,
have realized this fact and taken action,
as we have reported in the past. The
bourgeoisie and its governments in every
country cannot fail to take notice as well.
The
unfortunate lesson of the strike
is that wider class support came too late
to be meaningful. While effective where
implemented, solidarity pickets from
members of other unions did not become
widespread until after the Canada Post
strike had been banned. Unfortunately
that was a far cry from solidarity
actions across the shipping industry
in other countries. This points to a
weakness of the CUPW and other unions
in its position, namely, that it represents
workers of only one firm. By contrast,
capital has access to a variety of firms
for its every need. Amazon.com, for example,
ships through government postal services,
commercial parcel carriers, and its
own delivery network. Only workers’ unity
across and between industries can effectively
confront capital on this scale.
