Attivismo e spontaneismo nei fronti unici del pacifismo pluri‑classista
Non mancano i gruppi politici che denunciano la progressione del capitalismo mondiale verso una imminente guerra mondiale. Ma il problema, come sempre, oltre a comprendere cosa davvero sta succedendo, è stabilire come reagire.
Si formano larghi movimenti pacifisti a sostegno di dati partiti politici. A causa della loro struttura “aperta a tutti” questi fronti non sono in grado di esprimere posizioni univoche: il loro scopo è reclutare per i loro partiti di riferimento.
La tesi marxista dice: non è possibile, anzitutto, che la coscienza del cammino storico appaia anticipata in una singola testa umana, per due motivi: il primo è che la coscienza non precede ma segue l’essere, ossia le condizioni materiali che circondano il soggetto della coscienza stessa; il secondo è che tutte le forme della coscienza sociale vengono – con una data fase ritardata perché vi sia il tempo della generale determinazione – da circostanze analoghe e parallele di rapporti economici in cui si trovano masse di singoli che formano quindi una classe sociale. Questi sono condotti ad “agire insieme” storicamente molto prima che possano “pensare insieme”. La teoria di questo rapporto tra le condizioni di classe, e l’azione di classe col suo futuro punto di arrivo, non è chiesta a persone, nel senso che non è chiesta a un singolo autore o capo, e nemmeno è chiesta a “tutta la classe” come bruta momentanea somma di individui in un dato paese o momento, e tanto meno poi la si dedurrebbe da una borghesissima “consultazione” all’interno della classe. (“La falsa risorsa dell’attivismo”, Riunione generale, 7 settembre 1952)
L’attivista attende che dal movimento pacifista sorga spontanea la coscienza di classe e vede in questi piccoli gruppi isolati i primi passi della rivoluzione, nello spirito fallimentare dell’anarchica propaganda dell’atto. L’azione rivoluzionaria contro la guerra richiede invece una intesa internazionale unica, altrimenti ogni sforzo si disperde nelle richieste particolari e di presunte specificità di gruppi locali.
Il partito deve essere in grado di controllare ogni aspetto della sua vita, ogni funzione della sua organizzazione; per modo che nulla gli piombi inatteso incompreso misterioso. Andare in giro a spacciare per posizioni della Sinistra quelle che sostengono che il terrorismo è “un raggio di luce” per il proletariato, che il folclore politico dei gruppuscoli a base studentesca intellettuale sottoproletaria è “campo rivoluzionario”, che i “comitati operai” sono ubbie, per cui lavorarci dentro è “attivismo”, “economicismo”, e poco dopo sostenere il contrario, non per effetto di mutate situazioni ma perché spinti da “impazienza”, delusi che nulla ne sia derivato all’immediato, contrabbandare questo moto pendolare per “tattica” della Sinistra, significa disorientare i militanti, seminare la sfiducia nel partito, sgretolarne l’organizzazione, compromettere decenni e decenni di duro e coerente lavoro. (“Il partito non nasce dai ‘circoli’”, 1980)
Il piccolo circolo attivista è l’equivalente pratico del vasto fronte unito: cerca di reclutare gente di ogni tipo non in un partito coeso e definito ma in un’azione per l’azione. Pretende compensare con il numero la sua incoerenza politica.
Dal IV Congresso, fine del 1922, in poi la previsione pessimista e la vigorosa lotta della Sinistra seguitano a denunziare le tattiche pericolose (fronte unico tra partiti comunisti e socialisti, parola del “governo operaio”) e gli errori organizzativi (per i quali si volevano ingrandire i partiti non solo coll’accorrere ad essi di proletari che abbandonassero gli altri partiti a programma azione e struttura socialdemocratica, ma con fusioni che accettassero interi partiti e porzioni di partiti dietro patteggiamenti coi loro stati maggiori, ed anche coll’ammettere come sezioni nazionali del Comintern i pretesi partiti “simpatizzanti”, il che era un palese errore in senso federalistico).
In una terza direzione la Sinistra denunzia fin da allora, e sempre più vigorosamente negli anni successivi, il grandeggiare del pericolo opportunista: questo terzo argomento è il metodo di lavoro interno dell’Internazionale, per cui il centro rappresentato dall’Esecutivo di Mosca usa verso i partiti, e sia pure verso parti dei partiti che siano incorse in errori politici, metodi non solo di “terrore ideologico”, ma soprattutto di pressione organizzativa, il che costituisce una errata applicazione e man mano una falsificazione totale dei giusti principi della centralizzazione e della disciplina senza eccezioni. (“Tesi di Napoli”, 1965)
Il primo passo per fermare la guerra imperialista è scioperare per rifiutare di pagarne i costi
Assemblea nazionale Usb contro la guerra e per il sindacato di classe
Il capitalismo mondiale sta entrando in una nuova recessione. Ciò avviene senza che la maggior parte dei paesi capitalisticamente maturi – cosiddetti occidentali – abbia recuperato i livelli produttivi antecedenti la crisi del 2008.
Questi paesi sprofondano nella crisi di sovrapproduzione iniziata nel 1973-’74, a cui hanno potuto sopravvivere, per ormai mezzo secolo, grazie a un crescente attacco alle conquiste del movimento operaio, all’indebitamento statale e privato, al pieno dispiegarsi del capitalismo nei paesi cosiddetti “in via di sviluppo” che, col loro basso costo del lavoro e i loro ritmi di crescita di giovani capitalismi, hanno frenato la caduta del saggio del profitto.
Ma le inesorabili leggi economiche del capitalismo – che solo il marxismo ha saputo conoscere e spiegare – stanno facendo entrare anche quei capitalismi, ormai non più giovani, nella crisi di sovrapproduzione, fatto storico di cui è stato sintomo la recente esplosione della bolla speculativa immobiliare in Cina.
Il capitalismo mondiale marcia verso la sua inevitabile rovina economica, sprofondando ogni giorno di più l’umanità intera nella barbarie.
Il peggiore e peculiare prodotto della crisi economica capitalista è la guerra imperialista. I punti di attrito fra gli imperialismi mondiali e regionali, e fra gli Stati capitalisti loro vassalli, aumentano di numero e si surriscaldano: Medio Oriente, Balcani, Europa Orientale, Asia Centrale, confine indo-pakistano, Asia Meridionale, Taiwan….
Inevitabilmente la guerra scoppia e la responsabilità è del capitalismo nella sua interezza, nonostante ogni regime borghese cerchi di additarne la colpa all’avversario.
L’imperialismo russo deve reagire alla crisi economica capitalista che lo attanaglia all’interno. Quello statunitense – non meno decadente e logorato dalla crisi – opera per frenare il suo declino di potenza dominante, provocando conflitti che danneggino gli avversari: l’emergente imperialismo cinese, nonché i vecchi imperialismi d’Europa, nascosti dietro il mantello di una unità che nel capitalismo è impossibile e fasulla.
Gli imperialismi tutti operano sulla base della medesima spinta economica, come pure i minori Stati capitalisti, che sono però solo vasi di coccio in mezzo a vasi di ferro.
Della indipendenza dell’Ucraina e delle condizioni di vita della sua popolazione, come di quelle della popolazione del Donbass, non frega nulla ai regimi borghesi da una parte o dall’altra del conflitto. La guerra imperialista è solo questione di interessi economici e politici della borghesia: democrazia, resistenza, indipendenza, antifascismo sono solo turlupinature agitate da una parte e dall’altra del fronte per mandare i lavoratori a macello al fronte a combattere per gli interessi dei loro sfruttatori.
Perché, infine, la realtà storica più profonda della guerra imperialista, che matura di nuovo sotto i nostri occhi, è la lotta di classe: la guerra è un prodotto della crisi del capitalismo e al contempo il solo mezzo che esso ha per sopravvivere a se stesso, a spese, col sangue e contro la classe operaia e contro il comunismo.
Il vero “aggredito” nella guerra imperialista non è uno Stato capitalista, o un fronte di Stati, ma il proletariato internazionale, i lavoratori di tutto il mondo, mandati al macello per far sopravvivere questo modo di produzione disumano e reazionario.
Ma i lavoratori, se inquadrati nel loro sindacato di classe e guidati dal loro partito rivoluzionario, hanno la forza per fermare il nuovo macello mondiale a cui la borghesia li spinge per salvare se stessa.
La guerra imperialista per la borghesia mondiale è una questione di vita o di morte: deve scoppiare ed essere quanto più devastante possibile, perché solo distruggendo fabbriche, infrastrutture, città e merci d’ogni genere, compresa la merce forza lavoro, il capitalismo può riavviare un nuovo ciclo di accumulazione. La crescita economica degli anni ‘50 e ‘60 del secolo passato fu possibile grazie ai 50 milioni di vittime del secondo conflitto mondiale, anch’esso – come quello odierno – imperialista su entrambi i fronti.
La parola d’ordine del partito comunista rivoluzionario di fronte alla guerra imperialista è – come fu in Russia nell’ottobre 1917 – il disfattismo rivoluzionario: sostenere e organizzare il rifiuto dei soldati-lavoratori a combattere, invocare e fomentare la fraternizzazione coi lavoratori del fronte opposto, invocare e lavorare per la sconfitta militare del proprio paese.
L’unico modo per fermare la guerra imperialista è che in un settore nazionale del fronte di una guerra, che sarà ancora una volta mondiale, i lavoratori diano l’esempio, iniziando a rivolgere i fucili, non contro i loro fratelli di classe in diversa divisa con cui sono costretti a scannarsi dai rispettivi governi borghesi, ma contro il proprio comando militare e il proprio governo. Perché un simile esempio contagerà tutto il fronte, tutti i soldati, tutti gli eserciti nazionali. Ciò che fu tentato nel primo conflitto mondiale, dopo l’esempio dato dai soldati russi.
Per far questo è necessario un partito internazionale, comunista, della classe lavoratrice.
Ma è anche necessario che i lavoratori siano abituati e organizzati a lottare per i propri bisogni immediati, elementari: per aumenti salariali, per la riduzione dell’orario di lavoro, per il salario ai lavoratori disoccupati.
Perché questi bisogni, e la lotta per essi, uniscono i lavoratori al di sopra di ogni falsa divisione fra aziende, categorie, etnie, sesso e infine nazioni, e sono già disfattisti degli obiettivi e degli interessi dei borghesi: più profitti, più sfruttamento, sacrificio dei lavoratori per il bene dell’azienda e del capitalismo nazionale, guerra.
Per questo il primo passo del disfattismo proletario e rivoluzionario nella guerra imperialista è l’organizzazione della lotta per i bisogni economici, elementari, dei lavoratori: il primo passo per fermare la guerra imperialista è scioperare per rifiutare di pagarne i costi.
A questo scopo è necessario un autentico sindacato di classe, ancora assente in Italia come in tutti i paesi del mondo, risultato – al pari della debolezza del partito rivoluzionario – del lungo corso storico inaugurato dalla controrivoluzione staliniana, che ha distrutto e snaturato l’organizzazione e i principi del comunismo, condannando i proletari di tutto il mondo al supplizio di un altro secolo di capitalismo in putrefazione.
In Italia i sindacati di base da anni rappresentano un tentativo di costruzione di un sindacato di classe ma le divisioni frutto dell’opportunismo delle loro dirigenze aiutano i sindacati di regime (Cgil, Cisl, Uil) a mantenere il controllo dei lavoratori, il che contribuisce a impedirne la mobilitazione.
Nell’ultimo anno finalmente sono state compiute importanti azioni unitarie: lo sciopero generale dell’11 ottobre dell’anno passato e quello contro la guerra del 20 maggio scorso.
Di fronte alla grave crescita dell’inflazione che erode i salari, i militanti e i lavoratori di tutti i sindacati di base devono battersi affinché sia organizzata una lotta unitaria – che coinvolga anche le opposizioni di classe nella Cgil – che abbia al centro la rivendicazione di forti aumenti salariali.
In molti paesi del mondo, di giovane come di vecchio capitalismo – dal Pakistan al Regno Unito, dall’America Latina agli Stati Uniti – sono già in corso forti scioperi per ottenere aumenti salariali.
Nessuna energia deve essere invece dispersa nel demenziale e ingannevole teatrino elettorale borghese! Un movimento di sciopero di centinaia di migliaia di lavoratori è in grado di conquistare aumenti salariali che migliorino concretamente la loro vita mentre nulla possono milioni di voti. Decine di migliaia di lavoratori inquadrati nell’internazionale partito comunista rivoluzionario nei principali paesi del mondo, alla testa di un movimento sindacale di classe, è quanto sarà necessario per togliere il potere politico alla classe dominante e darlo alla classe lavoratrice.
Oggi, un fronte unico sindacale di classe per organizzare la lotta per aumentare i salari nel prossimo autunno è il primo passo concreto per costruire un vero sindacato di classe e opporsi alla guerra imperialista!
Nel Regno Unito la borghesia si prepara ad affrontare la crisi economica e lotte più estese della classe lavoratrice
Il 3 ottobre, aprendo la conferenza annuale del Partito conservatore, il cancelliere dello scacchiere (il ministro del tesoro) Kwasi Kwarteng ha annunciato che, a seguito dell’opposizione all’interno al partito, la proposta di ridurre l’aliquota massima delle tasse era stata “temporaneamente” ritirata. Il passo, azzardato, aveva fatto innervosito i mercati finanziari. Ma questo non significa che sia fuori dall’agenda e, ciò che più conta, la “ritirata” fornisce copertura per ogni altra misura contro la classe operaia.
Dietro-front della classe dominante
La sostituzione del Primo ministro Boris Johnson con Liz Truss e il nuovo cancelliere Kwasi Kwarteng aveva permesso alla borghesia di presentare l’operazione come un “cambio di marcia”, anche se condotta sempre del Partito Tory al governo da 12 anni.
La classe dominante britannica sa che una profonda recessione è inevitabile e vorrebbe utilizzare lo strumento fiscale per spostare quanta più ricchezza possibile dal proletariato al capitale prima che si verifichi il collasso economico.
Secondo la retorica del governo le misure avrebbero promosso la crescita economica, che avrebbe compensato i massicci tagli alle tasse, ridotto il debito nazionale e pagato gli investimenti in infrastrutture e per il servizio sanitario. Invece previsioni ufficiali già indicavano che solo ne avrebbe beneficiato l’1% più ricco della popolazione, la grande borghesia.
Nel frattempo il capitale finanziario (che è quello che davvero “governa”, non i pagliacci in carica, e tanto meno il parlamento) ha emesso il suo verdetto: la borsa è crollata e la sterlina ha perso il 3% in un solo giorno toccando il minimo sul dollaro dal 1985.
Intanto però i “ben informati” sulla manovra fiscale si sono dati alla speculazione: hanno venduto sterline contando di riacquistarle poco dopo a un prezzo inferiore. Il rendimento dei titoli di Stato decennali è salito a oltre il 4%, con un aumento di valore del 300% negli ultimi 12 mesi. Il rendimento delle obbligazioni tende a crescere in relazione inversa alle prospettive economiche del paese poiché gli investitori perdono fiducia nella capacità dello Stato di ripagare il suo debito. Aumentano così gli interessi che lo Stato deve pagare.
Il Financial Times, il giornale dell’alta borghesia ha riportato la verità, in completo contrasto con la stampa popolare che annunciava: «I Tory fanno tagli radicali alle tasse per provocare il boom della Gran Bretagna» (Daily Express) e «Ottimismo! Il Cancelliere promette una nuova era per la Gran Bretagna con un’impennata della crescita» (Daily Mail).
La teoria alla base di tutto questo è l’economia “a cascata”, la presunzione che se dai un sacco di soldi ai ricchi borghesi, alla fine un po’ di ricchezza arriverà anche ai proletari. Nessuno nella classe dominante, nemmeno i più accaniti sostenitori di questa teoria, ci crede davvero, ma ciò fornisce una copertura ideologica che viene strombazzata dalla stampa riservata ai lavoratori.
Ma sempre contro la classe operaia
Altre misure della manovra fiscale prevedevano la revoca del proposto aumento dei contributi previdenziali e la riduzione dell’aliquota base dell’imposta sul reddito dal 20% al 19%. Questo avrebbe potuto portare qualche sterlina in tasca a chi ha un reddito basso, ma sarebbero comunque inghiottite dall’inflazione e dall’aumento del prezzo di tutti i beni importati. Per chi ha un reddito al di sotto della minima soglia fiscale, la riduzione dell’imposta non porterebbe alcun vantaggio.
Inoltre le regole sui sussidi erano ulteriormente inasprite, rendendo più difficile l’accesso ai lavoratori part-time, con i benefici revocati a chi lavora meno di 15 ore settimanali. I richiedenti dovranno anche dimostrare di essere in cerca di lavoro, oppure di aver accettato occupazioni mal pagate o logoranti, come nel caso nell’assistenza dove è una massiccia carenza di personale a causa dei salari miseri, delle difficili condizioni di lavoro e della mancanza di lavoratori immigrati dall’UE per effetto della Brexit. Molti di questi lavori si trovano ora nel settore grigio della “Gig economy” dove si è classificati come “lavoratori autonomi”, liberando il padrone da costi, l’indennità di malattia, ecc.
L’annuncio del trasferimento di decine di miliardi alla borghesia è stato accompagnato da una dichiarazione di guerra alla classe operaia. Il cancelliere Kwarteng ha inveito: «In un momento così critico per la nostra economia è semplicemente inaccettabile che uno sciopero venga a sconvolgere così tante vite. Altri paesi europei hanno livelli minimi di servizio per impedire ai sindacati conflittuali di chiudere le reti di trasporto durante gli scioperi. Quindi faremo lo stesso. E andremo anche oltre. Faremo una legge per garantire che gli scioperi possano essere indetti solo una volta che i negoziati siano realmente interrotti».
Il regime borghese del Regno Unito vuole compiere il passo intrapreso dal quello italiano fin dal 1991, quando, invocate dai sindacati di regime (Cgil, Cisl e Uil) per fermare gli scioperi e l’avanzata dei sindacati di base, fu introdotta la legge antisciopero nei servizi cosiddetti “essenziali”. In Italia il rispetto e l’applicazione di questa legge sono garantiti da un apposito organismo statale, la Commissione di Garanzia. Negli anni i settori definiti “servizio essenziale”sono stati progressivamente estesi finendo per comprenderne la gran parte. Ad esempio, in una struttura ospedaliera tale legge ha effetto non solo sul personale medico, infermieristico, tecnico e socio-sanitario ma anche sugli addetti alla manutenzione e alle pulizie, generalmente impiegati in aziende il cui servizio è dato in appalto. Ciò agisce come un fattore eminente di freno per la riuscita d’ogni sciopero.
Di fatto le affermazioni dell’ex cancelliere Kwasi Kwarteng – dimessosi il 14 ottobre – si collocano in un contesto di agitazione operaia mai vista dalla fine degli anni settanta. Tutte le qualifiche ferroviarie,dai macchinisti al personale degli uffici, hanno scioperato insieme il 1°, il 5 e l’8 ottobre, organizzati nei sindacati Rail Maritime and Transport Workers, Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, Transport Salaried Staffs Association e Unite. Il sindacato delle poste e telecomunicazioni Communication Workers Union ha chiamato allo sciopero il 28 settembre. 1900 portuali di Felixstowe, il principale terminal container dell’isola inglese, hanno intrapreso il secondo sciopero di 8 giorni consecutivi, dal 27 settembre al 5 ottobre, dopo il primo dal 21 al 29 agosto. Anche i portuali di Liverpool sono scesi in sciopero in diverse giornate. Persino gli avvocati penalisti sono in sciopero a tempo indeterminato. Tutte queste lotte hanno al centro la rivendicazione di forti aumenti salariali per fare fronte all’aumento del costo della vita.
L’attacco del governo alla libertà di sciopero si rivolge non solo ai lavoratori scesi in lotta ma è contro tutta la classe operaia. La borghesia, impedendo a consistenti settori della classe lavoratrice di scioperare liberamente vuole indebolire un possible movimento generale messo in moto dalle rivendicazioni salariali.
Cambia il governo, resta l’austerità
I tagli fiscali di Kwasi Kwarteng hanno infine spinto i capitalisti inglesi a licenziarlo, il che è avvenuto il 14 ottobre. Al suo posto è subentrato Jeremy Hunt, noto per aver privato per sei anni, nelle precedenti amministrazioni Tory, i fondi al Servizio sanitario nazionale. Il 20 ottobre anche il primo ministro Liz Truss ha dovuto rassegnare le dimissioni, a capo del governo più breve nella storia britannica.
Per noi comunisti questo è solo un sintomo della crisi sempre più profonda del capitalismo nel Regno Unito. Chiunque sostituisca Truss ha una politica segnata: la grande borghesia ha deciso per l’austerità. In pratica ciò significa che la classe operaia deve pagare per la crisi del capitalismo: aumento del costo della vita, aumento degli affitti o delle rate dei mutui, tagli alle prestazioni sociali e ulteriori tagli al servizio sanitario e ai servizi pubblici come le biblioteche e le scuole pubbliche. Hunt ha già comunicato a tutti i dipartimenti governativi che devono effettuare tagli, con la probabile eccezione del Ministero della Difesa, mentre lo Stato aumenta il suo coinvolgimento in Ucraina.
Ma c’è di peggio
Nel contempo il Partito Laburista e lì pronto nel caso in cui, per fermare le lotte, si dovesse rendere necessario illudere i lavoratori di aver ottenuto una vittoria facendo cadere il governo conservatore.
I comunisti considerano scontato che per essere eletto in una democrazia borghese, e a maggior ragione per andare al governo per tale via, un partito deve dimostrare alla classe dominante che ci si può fidare di lui. Per questo il Partito Laburista dichiara di non sostenere gli scioperi e di non unirsi ai picchetti. La decisione della dirigenza del partito di cantare alla sua conferenza l’inno nazionale “God Save the King” invece che la tradizionale tiepida edulcorazione di “Bandiera Rossa” ha avuto un significato più che simbolico!
Ai lavoratori le chiare indicazione del nostro partito sono:
– estendere e unire lo sciopero a tutte le categorie della classe lavoratrice;
– rivendicare forti aumenti salariali, maggiori per le categorie peggio pagate;
– contrapporsi con lo sciopero generale a oltranza a ogni progetto di legge teso a limitare la libertà di sciopero;
– combattere le dirigenze sindacali opportuniste, o apertamente filopadronali, che impediscono ai lavoratori di scioperare e di unire gli scioperi delle diverse aziende e categorie;
– rifiutare ogni appello alla difesa dell’economia nazionale che altro non significa che difesa del capitalismo nazionale col sudore e col sangue della classe operaia;
– non riporre alcuna fiducia in cambi di governo nel quadro del presente regime politico borghese;
– il potere politico è della borghesia e la classe operaia può conquistarlo solo per via rivoluzionaria.
The Cascading Strike Wave in the UK
Despite the efforts of the capitalist media to smother talk of the cost of living crisis with endless coverage of the queen’s death and the regime unions using the event as a convenient excuse to cancel in progress and upcoming strike actions to “mourn”, there has been another resurgence in wildcat strikes across different sectors and 4 different unions, the Communication Workers Union (CWU), National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), Unite and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), calling for a concurrent “megastrike” on 1 October, mainly involving transport and mail workers.
On the 8th of September almost immediately after the queen’s death the CWU seized upon the opportunity by canceling a barely in progress 48-hour strike of 115,000 postal workers while the RMT canceled called off an upcoming 2 day strike scheduled for 15 and 17 September. There was also cancellation of strikes by ASLEF, the TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association), and the Criminal Bar Association while the Trades Union Congress (TUC) postponed its upcoming congress.
The stoppage of strike action has already allowed for a derisory, below-inflation pay deal of 9.25% to be slipped through with low levels of member support, with the ‘Unite’ union even going as far as to present the deal as being 10% with some creative accounting methods over how back pay will be calculated.
There have also been more open clashes between the interests of workers and regime unions: a wildcat strike by oil and gas rig workers across 17 different locations, all coordinated through social media.
The 24-hour strike on 14 September has been condemned by all the main trade unions meant to be representing the workers involved, who released a joint statement reading: “Our concern is that unofficial action risks everything [that could be achieved through the ESA.] Trying a smash and grab job for short term gains we fear will only put the whole thing at risk.”
Also on 23 September there was a simultaneous strike of delivery workers in Luton, employed by Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo, apparently organised through a large WhatsApp group chat.
Belgian Rail Workers Strike Against Cuts
The crisis in capitalism is a global one and workers in all countries face similar challenges. Rail workers are taking action in parallel disputes in many countries, which now include Belgium. The politicians everywhere mouth pietisms about global warming, yet in practice they are cutting back on investment in railways, one of the most environmentally friendly forms of travel. In Belgium, a small but relatively wealthy country, budgetary cuts mean that without additional resources, 700 km of railway lines are threatened with disappearance, along with 2,000 jobs. Belgian railway workers, who also face cuts in real wages, have had enough and are organizing the resistance.
Belgian railways are already under strain. 22,000 trains were canceled over the last year. That’s one train out of 30, a record number. Punctuality has also gone down, after an upturn during the Covid period. The reason is disinvestment and a glaring lack of staff. The government has promised a wholly inadequate package of support for SNCB (which runs the trains) and Infrabel (which manages and maintains the tracks). But the package also involved closures of ticket offices, price increases and an end to the ticket for large families, which encourages people to get off the roads and onto trains.
The Belgian government’s answer is a familiar one: workers need to do more with less. The package proposes a reduction of 2,000 jobs, while increasing the number of timetabled journeys 1% per year for the next ten years, even though it cannot manage to provide 100% of its services now.
According to SNCB and Infrabel, the railroads would need an additional 3.4 billion euros (over 10 years, or about 340 million euros per year) to meet the government’s objectives. The railways have also been hit by rising energy costs, amounting to about 100 million euros to date.
Belgian rail workers are increasingly expected to bear the burden. They have not received a pay rise for 14 years and are being hit hard by the rising cost of living. Inflation in Belgium was running at 11.27% in September, up from 9.94% in August.
National rail strike
Consequently, the Belgian unions went on a national strike on October 5. Three-quarters of Belgian trains did not run during the 24-hour strike organized by a common front of the rail unions, which demanded not only a wage increase for railway workers but also more safety and welfare on the railways. The strike began at 10:00 pm on Tuesday night and train travel was disrupted until late Wednesday. Originally scheduled for October 18, the strike was brought forward to put additional pressure on the authorities during the 2023-24 budget discussions, and to denounce the lack of structural means granted by the federal government to SNBC.
“Railway workers are exhausted because of a lack of staff,” said Anthony Signorino, regional secretary of the General Union of Public Services (ACOD/CGSP), an affiliate member of the FGTB federation.
General strike planned for November 9
Railway workers are also supporting nationwide demands to block energy prices and unblock wages. The General Labor Federation of Belgium (French: Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique, or FGTB; Dutch: Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond, ABVV) is calling a general strike of its 1.5 million members for November 9.
The trade unions are feeling the pressure from below and are keen to ensure that this anger is channeled in a direction it can control, having been sidelined by recent legislation.
The law on the wage standard, which was reinforced by the government of Charles Michel in 2017 (Charles Michel is now President of the EU Council of Ministers, a typical career progression for Belgian Prime Ministers!) makes it impossible for unions to negotiate real wage increases with the bosses. The Belgian “wage standard” is set every two years and determines the margin for increasing wage costs. Its aim is to hold wages at or below the expected wage rises in Belgium’s larger neighbors (France, the Netherlands and Germany) but is used as a means of wage restraint. As the government website states, “If Belgian labor costs increase faster than those of our neighbors, the competitiveness of our economy decreases, which has a negative impact on employment.”
However, even this wage indexation is being attacked by employers’ confederations! The net effect with the rise in the cost of living is that some Belgian families have to choose between heating and feeding themselves.
Consolidated action by workers in Belgium is often impeded by divisions. Alongside the socialist ABVV/FGTB, there is also the Christian confederation, ACV/CSC and the liberal ACLVB/CGSLB confederation. Bourgeois politicians also exploit the division between the French, Dutch and German-speaking parts of the country. However, there are positive signs that in the crisis, class unity is being strengthened.
Fra i ferrovieri Usa cresce la volontà di lotta
Negli Stati Uniti la borghesia aveva cantato a gran voce vittoria: lo sciopero nazionale dei ferrovieri era stato evitato! I colloqui notturni fra i rappresentanti sindacali e quelli delle compagnie ferroviarie, con la mediazione di funzionari del governo federale, che avevano preceduto la scadenza dello sciopero, avevano portato a un accordo provvisorio all’ultimo minuto. A seconda della sua ratifica o meno da parte dei lavoratori lo sciopero avrebbe potuto ancora verificarsi, ma una tornata di trattative di emergenza lo ha rimandato.
Questi ultimi eventi sono il culmine di anni di contrattazione collettiva che si è arenata in diverse occasioni su varie questioni. Ci sono problemi per quanto riguarda i salari e l’assistenza sanitaria ma il punto più gravoso per i lavoratori è la programmazione dei turni. I lavoratori delle ferrovie sono reperibili 24 ore su 24, 7 giorni su 7. Mentre un lavoratore tipico negli Stati Uniti ha due giorni di riposo a settimana (104 giorni annui) più due settimane di ferie all’anno, per un totale di 118 giorni, i ferrovieri hanno di solito solo 30 giorni di ferie all’anno. Sono talmente oberati di lavoro che, nonostante le ampie applicazioni della scienza e della tecnica e le norme messe in atto per prevenire incidenti, molto costosi per le aziende, i deragliamenti dei treni dovuti alla stanchezza dei macchinisti sono molto frequenti.
Il governo è intervenuto nominando un Comitato di emergenza presidenziale. Ascoltati i sindacati e le compagnie, che hanno presentato le loro proposte, il Comitato ha pubblicato le sue raccomandazioni. Le compagnie hanno ovviamente appoggiato questo organismo, ad esse favorevole. I sindacati hanno esitato a mettere ai voti le proposte delle aziende e quando lo hanno fatto, seppure sulla base delle scarse informazioni disponibili, i lavoratori le hanno respinte in modo schiacciante.
Per risolvere la crisi è stato necessario un ulteriore intervento dello Stato. Il Presidente Biden ha incontrato e parlato con le parti per garantire che il conflitto rimanesse entro i limiti dell’ordine, impedendo qualsiasi estensione o inasprimento della lotta, mentre il Segretario al Lavoro, un ex dirigente del sindacalismo di regime, ha agito come mediatore nei colloqui notturni.
A poche ore dalla scadenza del periodo “di riflessione” di trenta giorni, successivo alla pubblicazione delle proposte del comitato, allo scadere del quale sarebbe stato permesso ai sindacati di scioperare, le compagnie ferroviarie hanno accettato di concedere alcune modifiche minori, come i massimali per i contributi sanitari dei dipendenti e il diritto di richiedere in anticipo di un giorno di ferie aggiuntivo all’anno (ma non necessariamente di ottenerlo).
L’attuale governo è la quintessenza della strategia “collaborazionista” della borghesia contro il proletariato. La sua maschera progressista ha la funzione propagandistica e ideologica di far apparire lo Stato come un mediatore neutrale tra lavoro e capitale, o addirittura come il padre benevolo e protettivo della classe operaia, perpetuando l’illusione che il capitale possa essere pacificamente e legalmente indotto a migliorare le condizioni di vita e di lavoro della classe operaia.
In realtà, come si evince dai termini dell’accordo provvisorio, il capitale non può fare concessioni significative nemmeno sotto la veste di un regime “di sinistra”, per cui i lavoratori vedono pochi cambiamenti sostanziali nella loro vita quotidiana.
Sebbene il governo “favorevole ai lavoratori” sostenga i sindacati, che ricambiano il favore invitando i propri iscritti a sostenere i politicanti alle urne anziché scioperare, tale sostegno è subordinato alla “buona condotta” dei sindacati. I sindacati collaborazionisti ricevono un trattamento di favore, mentre la combattività operaia continua a essere repressa e l’indipendenza dei sindacati dai partiti borghesi viene sabotata ad ogni occasione. Inoltre, i benefici offerti dallo Stato vanno per lo più a favore della dirigenza sindacale, ai cui elementi può essere offerto, ad esempio, un lavoro lucrativo e comodo nel governo federale.
I sindacati esistenti oggi negli Stati Uniti hanno in gran parte abbracciato il ruolo di intermediario parassitario tra lavoro e capitale, estraendo quote dagli iscritti e tangenti dall’azienda; allo stesso tempo, contrattano con lo Stato sostenendo che, in quanto rappresentanti dei lavoratori, sono gli unici in grado di contenere le lotte operaie e quindi di garantire la pace sociale.
La degenerazione dei sindacati è un segno dell’attuale debolezza della classe operaia. Tuttavia, allo stesso tempo, le macchinazioni degli opportunisti dei sindacati e dei governanti sono un segno del fatto che sono ossessionati dalla potenziale rinascita del movimento operaio.
Il comitato direttivo di Railroad Workers United (RWU), un’organizzazione di base che promuove la combattività e l’unione dei lavoratori tra i sindacati ferroviari, ha adottato una esplicita risoluzione sul possibile sciopero ferroviario nazionale. L’esortazione sembra aver avuto buon esito. Lunedì 10 ottobre la Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division, un sindacato degli operai addetti alla costruzione e manutenzione della rete ferroviaria, ha dichiarato che degli 11.845 votanti, 5.100 hanno approvato e 6.646 respinto l’accordo provvisorio scaturito dal negoziato fra sindacati e Comitato di emergenza presidenziale. Il sindacato invoca la riapertura del tavolo negoziale e per ora fissa come termine per una possibile azione di sciopero il 19 novembre.
1877 American Rail Strike: An Historical Lesson for Today’s Working Class
Because so many railroad workers are enraged by the latest Tentative Agreement reached by union leaders and rail carriers with the mediation of the government; because the rank-and-file wants to strike, and is interested in the history of national rail strikes in the United States of America (one piece of evidence among others is Railroad Workers United calling upon the rail unions to educate their respective memberships on labor history) so that they can utilize the lessons of past victories and defeats to strike as effectively as possible against their class enemies, we have decided to reproduce some excerpts on the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 from our study of the history of the American labor movement in order to meet the demands of the rising working class, of which we are a faithful servant.
Some of the conclusions we drew from analyzing the militant action of American workers in 1877 include:
- The importance of extending the struggle geographically – note in the passage below that almost every time local strikes were repressed, the workers’ cause was saved by outbreaks in new cities, new states, etc. – and across crafts and industries, which in some cases enabled the working class to take control of entire cities, as was the case with the so-called St. Louis Commune.
- The critical importance of organization – without access to large strike funds of the accumulated union dues of members across the nation, and without the ability to mobilize huge swaths of the working class in unison by means of directives from national and international leadership, the strike was doomed to fail in the end.
- Finally, the fatal absence of a class party, which could have facilitated the generalization of the struggle – for example by advancing demands of interest to the entire working class, such as the eight-hour day – and the organization of the workers, in addition to acting as a gathering place for the most advanced workers and as a repository for the lessons of history, the seed of a future revolutionary movement.
For the railroad workers considering a national rail strike today, these conclusions must be applied to our current situation. Since the struggles of workers in any one industry or locality can always be crushed by the bosses and their state, it is imperative that the association and action of workers transcends industrial and geographical boundaries. Moreover, the support or opposition of the unions and their leaders – from the union locals, through the national unions uniting all workers of each craft, to the international union federations (e.g. the AFL-CIO and the Strategic Organizing Center) – will play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the strike; if workers cannot win the support of these organizations, then it is time to consider alternative forms of organization. And lastly, the most conscious and resolute workers must learn to recognize their historical mission, the unique political program of their class, and form a class party to achieve both their immediate and ultimate aims.
We wrote about the immense 1877 national rail strike in Chapter 8 of our study, The History of the Labor Movement in the United States of America, which we reproduce here.
* * *
The most significant event of these years [the 1870s], which left a permanent dread in the memory of the bourgeoisie, was a series of strikes that manifested themselves in the course of 1877, in the final period of the economic crisis, which, due to its broad scope and duration has received various names. “The Great Strike of 1877”, “The Great Railroad Strike”, “The Great Upheaval”.
It all started on July 16 at Martinsburg, West Virginia, when it was learned that the local railroad company had lowered wages by 10 percent, the second reduction in eight months. The workers had no more leeway: many were unemployed, huge numbers only worked a few hours, the payment of wages was sometimes delayed by months, hunger was their families’ constant companion. The bosses wanted, among other things, to destroy the workers’ unions which, apart from being few in number and small, were extremely submissive and anything but combative; the union leaders were on blacklists, negotiations with the Unions were not accepted, and the Pinkerton spies were so active that the workers even avoided speaking among themselves.
The great upheaval was in reality preceded by a period of apparent inertia among the workers. The managing director of one of the railroad companies wrote on June 21, “The experiment of cutting back wages has proved successful for all the companies that have done it recently, and I have no reason to fear that there can be agitations or resistance on the part of the dependents if this is carried out with the necessary firmness on our side and if they realize that they must accept willingly or leave”. Even on the day of the Martinsburg strike itself the Governor of Pennsylvania affirmed that the State had not known the calm of this period for years. Within a few days the State would be at the center of the revolt.
On July 16, 40 railroad workers went on strike and blocked a goods train. The police did not succeed in getting them to back down. The next day a detachment of the militia arrived. In the attempt to allow the train to depart the first clash took place, and a worker was killed by a soldier. At this point the soldiers desisted, also because they did not find anyone willing to maneuver the train, and withdrew.
Now the strike spread along the entire line, the Baltimore & Ohio, all the way to Baltimore in Maryland. The Governor, being disappointed by the National Guard which, largely composed of railroad workers, fraternized with the strikers, turned to President Hayes asking for Federal troops to be dispatched: the President satisfied this request. It was the first time that Federal troops had been used to repress a strike in peacetime on the metropolitan territory of the United States. General French, in command of the troops, arrested the strike leaders and informed Washington that everything was now tranquil. But the General was mistaken. The strike had already extended to the rest of West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, to the bargemen, miners and other categories, all united by the inhuman living conditions and the bosses’ attack. At Baltimore the workers sought to impede the departure of the soldiers, who opened fire, killing 12 and injuring many others.
Repression was detailed: whoever attempted to win over a scab was immediately arrested; any group of workers who attempted to stop a train became a target for the fire of the soldiers. On the 22nd, after arrests and killings, with the army joining in the action along with private troops, militia, police, press and courts, the strike on the Baltimore & Ohio was broken.
But meanwhile the strike extended: the railroad workers of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and California were brought to a halt by the strike.
At Pittsburgh the struggle was especially hard: the workers refused a ridiculous agreement by a yellow union, and organized themselves in a secret union, the Trainmen’s Union, one that finally embraced all categories of railroad workers, and not just the drivers, often jealous of their own interests. The tactics were similar in this struggle to those adopted at Martinsburg. The Governor decided to send the Philadelphia militia, counting on a certain local rivalry. The maneuver worked, with the soldiers firing on the people that did not back off, causing 20 dead and 29 injured. In the face of this massacre, rather than being discouraged, the crowd grew with the influx of workers of all trades, also from the surroundings, and also the local militia; the anger was uncontainable, buildings and rolling stock were set alight; the troops had to withdraw. There were also 11 deaths in Reading, Pennsylvania.
Hayes asked the troops to protect Washington. The press sounded the alarm: “Pittsburgh ransacked (…) in the hands of men controlled by the diabolical spirit of communism” wrote the New York World. Newspapers, clergy, public functionaries: they all denounced the strike as a new Paris Commune: “an insurrection, a revolution, an attempt by communists and vagabonds to subjugate society, to put American institutions in danger”. The newspapers openly called for the spilling of blood. The strikers, declared the New York Tribune, only understand the logic of force; therefore it is useless to show mercy towards “the ignorant rabble with greedy mouths”. For the New York Herald the crowd “is a savage beast, to be cut down”. The New York Sun recommended a diet of lead for the starving strikers, while The Nation called for the use of snipers. And from this period the infamous utterance from billionaire Jay Gould: “I would give a million dollars to see General Grant as dictator or emperor”.
Despite this, after Pittsburgh the militia, wherever it was utilized, fraternized with the strikers and proved useless, if not counter-productive.
In Chicago a street battle between police and strikers on the 26th ended with 12 workers slashed to death; the workers subsequently prevailed for a few days, then to give up in face of the reunited forces of reaction.
The recently reconstituted Working Men’s Party had had scarce contacts with the railroad workers before the strike. But from the first days it was highly active in the attempt to extend the struggle both geographically and across categories. Apart from supporting the struggles it also attempted to provide them with subjects of general interest, such as the eight-hour day and the abolition of anti-union laws. In Chicago it played a leading role. In St. Louis the party managed to organize the strikers directly: on the 29th, even though some of the bosses had conceded the requested wage rises, the strike was total, and the workers were in charge of the city.
But reaction did not hold back, and the combined forces of the bourgeoisie, which raised $20,000 to arm a force of one thousand mercenaries, of the militia, the mounted police, Federal troops and other volunteers had the upper hand over the proletarians: their quarters were devastated, tens of their leaders arrested and condemned to huge fines and custodial sentences. On August 2 the strike ended.
As was to be expected, given the level of organization of the American proletariat, the Great Strike ended in defeat. Not entirely however, because in many cases the bosses indeed conceded wage increases, or withdrew the threatened wage cuts. But for sure, the average American worker had learned at least two fundamental lessons: in the first place they understood the great power that the class was able to exert when it moved in unison; and moreover that this great power could come to nothing without an organization that gave it continuity, networks and the ability to resist. This provided the decisive impetus towards the formation of national labor unions, capable of moving great masses and of supporting strikers for prolonged periods, thanks to the number of contributing members.
Strikes and Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina
The current crisis has hit workers in Bosnia and Herzegovina especially hard. The inflation rate as of September is 16.8%, the highest of all ex-Yugoslav states. Analysis done by the Union of Trade Unions of Bosnia and Herzegovina tells us that the minimum wage covers only 19% of the cost of living and that the average wage covers only 38% of it. The crisis of course led to a modest but not negligible resumption in class struggle.
Healthworkers
Over 5000 healthcare workers in Tuzla Canton had started a general strike demanding wage increase from 2.51 KM/h ($1.25/hr) to 2.81 KM/h ($1.40/hr). This strike resumes one that was held in May where the government had at first agreed to demands but later opted to offer a lower increase. As soon as the new strike was announced, the canton government ruled to make it illegal. The workers continue to struggle for better pay.
In May, healthcare workers in Canton 10 held a similar strike. The strike was led by three unions representing doctors, nurses and help staff (e.g., hospital cleaners). On 26 September, unions signed a collective agreement despite the help staff’s union’s claims that they weren’t invited to negotiations and that the signed agreement wasn’t beneficial to them. A day later, however, they decided to strike on their own.
Education workers
High school teachers in western Herzegovina held a one hour warning strike continuing their two year long struggle for a collective agreement. On 21 September, 430 kindergarten workers started a strike in Banja Luka, the capital of Republika Srpska (“Serb Republic” within Bosnia and Herzegovina) for a 50 KM ($24.94) pay increase after wages having remained stagnant for 17 years.
Miners
Miners are historically and currently one of the most militant sectors in Bosnia and Herzegovina. After mass protests in late 2021 and in May of this year, miners working in 7 mines owned by state electricity company Elekroprivreda BiH held a warning strike because the company had paid all its workers except the miners a one-time 750 KM ($374) payment. On the next day the company announced that the miners would be getting the payment too.
Miners employed by the private mining company ArcelorMittal in Prijedor also held a warning strike after their coworkers in Zenica were promised an 1100 KM ($549) one-time payment after Zenica’s city government allowed a tax-free payment to workers. Strikes are set to continue in all other mines owned by ArcelorMittal’s until all workers get the payment.
Elections
All of these strikes are happening in the backdrop of a general election which is, once again, considered the “most important in the history of the country”. After three and a half years of bloody imperialist war in the 1990s, to quell nationalist tensions, the Dayton Accords set up one of the most complicated political systems in the world. The country was divided into two entities, Republika Srpska and Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with 3 constituent peoples – Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. The state has three presidents, each entity has two assemblies and the Federation also has 10 cantons which have some degree of self-goverment. On Sunday 2 October citizens voted on all of these.
The elections come after years of tensions between Bosniak and Croat parties. To give a better picture, only Croats can run for seats reserved for Croat representatives, but voters of every nationality can vote on them. This enables voters of one nationality to elect representatives of other nationalities. For example, Komšić, the current Croat member of the presidency got most of his votes in areas where Croats are a minority. This led to massive backlash from Croat parties led by the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ) and Dragan Čović, the Bosnia Croat president of HDZ, and then a campaign calling for national unity, drawing on fears that Bosniaks will turn Croats into a minority nation and that Croats will lose their constitutional rights. It is true that Croat numbers are shrinking, but this is primarily due to Croat bourgeois, anti-worker economic policies that force thousands of workers to migrate westward into Europe. Negotiations between the sides mediated by the Office of High Representative, a controversial body elected by the UN Security Council that is supposed to safeguard the implementation of the Dayton Accords, have continuously failed.
The Serbian side is dominated by the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats, or SNSD, and is led by Milorad Dodik. Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Dodik and his fellow other heads of government of Srpska were under Western sanctions for their support and constant threats of to secede Srpska from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since the invasion, Dodik has become known as Putin’s number one man in the Balkans, which lead to EUFOR increasing the number of soldiers stationed in the country.
The situation faced by the proletariat today, not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina but in all countries, is one of constant crisis, threats of military intervention and constant divisions. What then is the path the workers must take to escape this vicious cycle of crises? The answer lies neither in nationalist politics, nor in the liberal utopianism promoted by the so-called “civil” parties. The working class can only save itself by struggling for itself, within its class organs, and learning through this struggle to overcome all divisions – national, religious and sectoral.
Trade Union Activity in Italy
(Report from General Meeting 144, September 2022)
Currently, the party’s trade union activity in Italy can be divided into four areas: the drafting of notes, articles and leaflets; direct intervention in demonstrations and strikes; activity inside trade unions, which currently is limited to the rank and file union USB; and activity within the Coordinamento Lavoratori Autoconvocati (CLA).
For nearly 10 years – since the January 2013 issue – the party has returned to include in the Italian newspaper a fixed page of “action and theoretical party address” titled “For the Class Union”. (Per il Sindacato di Classe)
In the June issue, accompanying the leaflet we circulated at the demonstrations for the May 20 general strike against the war, called by all the rank and file unions, we published a commentary about its progress and preparation.
We were able to follow the preparation of the strike closely through the Coordinamento Lavoratori Autoconvocati (CLA), which was invited to participate in the preparatory organizational meetings, as well as all the bodies – including non-class bodies – that supported its promotion, since the first national assembly in Milan on April 9, which we attended and at which we spoke, both by disseminating party leaflets and by a speech on behalf of the CLA.
While we saw there were limitations in the preparation of the strike and the low participation in it, our judgment of this action was not negative, since we emphasized:
– The value in the attempt to organize working class action against imperialist war, which is under way in Ukraine, in the face of the bellicose uproar deployed by the bourgeois regimes in Italy and the rest of Europe, and the immobility of the regime unions aimed at preventing any such movement by the workers; – to the fact that, even amidst hesitation and wavering, all the rank and file unions eventually joined the strike.
This judgment, even when placed in context with the previous united general strike of October 11, 2021, distinguishes us, among workers’ groups and parties acting in the labor movement. Most of the latter – including the leaderships of rank and file unions – either expressed a negative judgment or minimized the importance of the actions taken by rank and file unionism against the war.
These differences from our judgments are due to two factors, united by, firstly, giving too much importance to the numerical weakness of the present demonstrations and, secondly, giving too little importance to the characteristics that make them likely to have a wider future development.
The first of these two factors is the scant regard in which the autonomous action of the working class alone is held, the result of the opportunistic political approach which considers a popular, interclass movement to be of greater value provided – at best – that the working class is “at the center”.
According to this approach, for example with regard to opposition to the imperialist war, a large part of these opportunist workers’ groups place much more value on large pacifist demonstrations of an interclass nature than on strikes by a part (albeit a minority one) of the working class.
We, on the other hand, know that only the mobilization of the working class is capable of preventing or stopping the imperialist war, and that this is what the bourgeois regime really fears.
Thus a first attempt at mobilization on the trade union, i.e. class, level of the workers against the imperialist war is of great importance, in the certain prospect of the maturing of inter-imperialist contrasts and the consequent pressure of the bourgeois regime on the working class to bend it to exploitation and militarism.
The second element-which seems to us to underlie the different judgment from that expressed by our party on the merits of the strike against the imperialist war and the previous one in October 2021-is the lack of importance given to the unified character of these mobilizations, that is, to the fact that all the rank and file trade unions joined them.
This, we believe, inasmuch as this unitary character does not appear, in the immediate term, to have been a condition that led to substantial advances in the numerical participation of workers in the strikes thus called.
As we have explained repeatedly in our articles and leaflets, the united action of the bodies of militant unionism – the rank and file unions as well as the class oppositions in the CGIL – is not in itself a magical solution to the current state of passivity of the working class.
This state of passivity is the result of a series of complex factors concerning the century-long cycle of counterrevolution that began in the mid-1920s.
The united action of the militant trade unions, pursued consistently and organically, that is, at all levels of trade union action – corporate, territorial, categorical, national and confederal – is the subjective condition such as to foster the most rapid return of workers to struggle when objective conditions become favorable in this regard.
Conversely, the persistence of the opportunistic conducts of the leaderships of the rank and file unions, which divide the workers’ struggle action, is an eminent factor of restraint, which helps maintain the regime unions’ control over the workers, of maintaining their state of passivity.
Moreover, the direction of the unity of action of militant trade unionism, agitated at the rank and file of its bodies, is useful in sustaining and organizing the struggle against the trade union leaderships and their opportunism; expecting that such persistent and organic unity of action, leading to a permanent united class trade union front, can only be had against and to the detriment of them.
In the past two years we have witnessed a partial change of course on the part of the leaderships of the rank and file unions, especially those of USB and Si COBAS. It first showed itself with the nation-wide unified strike in logistics held June 18, 2021. It should be recalled that in this very category there was a few years ago the hardest clash between the two basic unions. Then the united course led to the October 11 general strike, a mobilization still far from being a true general strike but the most successful compared to similar actions in previous years. Then there was the general strike against the war on May 20. Finally, as we will report later, the united demonstration in Piacenza on July 23 in response to the arrests of USB and SI COBAS leaders.
This unitary course has taken place, and is likely to continue, amidst limitations, hesitations, backtracking: one step forward and two steps back.
* * *
Again in the June issue of the Italian newspaper we published a commentary on a national assembly convened in Florence on May 15 by the former GKN Factory Collective, in which we participated as CLA representatives.
This assembly allowed us, through this commentary, to reiterate some important points of our trade union direction, with regard to what the true characteristics of a class movement are and to the relationship between the economic struggle and the political struggle of the working class.
Here we add only one consideration that ties in with the above. The Factory Collective of the former GKN managed to aggregate around its struggle against the closure of the plant a movement of a certain size, such that it deployed several demonstrations, well attended, the most successful with over ten thousand participants.
The May 15 assembly was also successful, with over three hundred in attendance. These numbers have – rightly – attracted the attention of all rank and file unionism, its militants, and even the CLA.
However, in spite of the participatory mobilizations, to the extent that the leaders of the former GKN Factory Collective attached more importance to uniting their struggle with interclass movements – such as the student or environmental movements – than to uniting with other workers’ struggles and, even more importantly, than to unifying the action of militant unionism, the prospects of the small movement to which they gave birth are shorter-range, compared to those of the united actions of basic unionism, albeit for now less striking in terms of participation.
The work, the effort, on the part of our party, in the union sphere, and through the CLA, has been to explain how the former GKN Factory Collective’s ability to mobilize originates in the union work carried out in the past years, up to the announced closure of the factory by the ownership, and how the only future perspective is outside the factory; in the construction not of an interclass movement but of a working class one, working for the union of workers’ struggles and of militant unionism.
The commitments made by the ex GKN Collective for demonstrations planned in the months ahead, all of which are interclassist in character, and the absence of any initiative aimed at directing and strengthening the movement of class-based union struggle, confirm what had already been observed in the evolution of the characteristics of the demonstrations and demands from the beginnings of the dispute from July 2021 to the present.
Contributing to the dissipation of these energies of workers’ struggle in the quagmire of interclassism, once again to the detriment of the necessary work of rebuilding class union strength, were the opportunist political approach of the Collective’s workers’ leaders and their membership in the CGIL.
These two factors led them, on the one hand, to belittle the value of autonomous action by the working class and to seek instead the building of a people’s movement, and on the other hand, not to act as a force for promoting the unity of action of militant trade unionism, so as not to jeopardize their place within the CGIL.
To really and thoroughly pursue the unity of action of conflictual unionism in fact, can only lead the areas of opposition within CGIL to break with the internal discipline of that union, which would reveal the impossibility of a class orientation within the CGIL and the need to organize outside and against it.
* * *
Confirming what has been said so far, about the vacillations and reluctance of the leaderships of the rank and file unions to persevere and improve unitary action among the various trade union organizations, after the May 20 anti-war strike, the unitary course – contrary to what we had hoped for and called for – appears to have stalled, if even, perhaps, taken steps backward.
There were other meetings between the union leaderships but this time reserved for them, which the CLA therefore could not attend.
To date there is serious confusion about the general initiatives that will be promoted in the fall months.
There is a call for a SI COBAS-, USB- and CUB-lead general strike registered with the Guarantee Commission for Oct. 21; the notice sent on July 15 has not been promoted among member workers of these unions.
As if this were not enough, last Sunday – Sept. 18 – the SI COBAS held a national assembly in Bologna, titled “Let’s relaunch proletarian opposition to the bosses’ plans of misery, militarism and policies of social butchery”, from which it launched a general strike for Dec. 2, which evidently implies the withdrawal of adherence to the Oct. 21 mobilization.
Some leaders seem to be waiting for the national general elections on Sept. 25 before they start propagandizing and organizing any mobilizations. Or, which is even worse, they are too busy competing in the elections, as in the case of the USB leadership.
This confusion and inconclusiveness on the part of the leadership groups in the rank and file unions evidently only does harm to the work of reconstructing the class union movement, at a time when the issue of high living costs is posed with increasing gravity, and which should see rank and file unionism take an initiative to defend workers from it.
This, all the more so given that, in view of a likely victory of the right-wing bourgeois parties, the CGIL will return, as it has always done, to give itself to some activism through mobilizations. A first sign of this is the FIOM national demonstration in Rome called for October 8th, convened without even waiting for the passage of the elections. At this demonstration our comrades will speak.
* * *
In between the ineptitude of the opportunist leaderships of the rank and file unions manifested in recent weeks and the May 20 anti-war strike, in July there was the affair of the arrest in Piacenza of 8 local and national leaders of SI COBAS and USB.
The arrest took place as part of an investigation by the Piacenza prosecutor’s office. This is the third attempt to judicially attack the class union movement in logistics: twice by the Piacenza prosecutor’s office, once by that of Modena.
In the first two cases, all charges were dropped along the trial process. This third attempt, for the first time involves not only SI COBAS but also USB.
Even in this third attempt, the most serious and central charge of the investigation, that of “criminal conspiracy”, came down less than two months after its initiation.
Reading the excerpts of the investigation compiled by the prosecution, indeed it seems blatant how it does not stand up judicially, and is characterized as a mere attack with anti-union aims, to curb strikes in the logistics sector and destroy the rank and file unions that organize them.
The reaction to the arrests was quite positive in terms of participation in the local demonstrations and the July 23 national demonstration in Piacenza, considering that they took place in the middle of the summer vacations period.
The most positive aspect was the united reaction of SI COBAS and USB: in Piacenza the workers of the two unions marched not only in the same procession but also mixed, that is, not divided into two sections.
We intervened by distributing a leaflet that was promptly translated into four languages.
The CLA also intervened with a leaflet titled “Unite with struggle and organization what the State wants to divide and intimidate with repression”.
* * *
The Coordinamento Lavoratori Autoconvocati, in addition to the national demonstration in Piacenza on July 23, intervened in the summer months with two leaflets.
The first was on August 2, at Piaggio in Pontedera, where on July 27 there was a strike compactly joined by workers, with a procession inside the factory, following a serious injury to a female worker.
In this factory there was traditionally a robust minority of delegates from the opposition area in CGIL, as metalworkers members of FIOM (CGIL’s metal workers union).
Several years ago, these delegates had been suspended from FIOM CGIL but had not left that regime union, and had finally been readmitted to it.
Six years ago, a minority of these delegates left FIOM to join the USB. Between the delegates from the opposition within CGIL who remained in that union and those who switched to USB there was from the beginning a climate of discord.
A few months ago, delegates from the opposition groups in CGIL who had remained in that regime union also decided to leave it, and switched to a small rank and file union called SIAL COBAS. So now at Piaggio in Pontedera there are two rank and file unions.
In the nearby former Continental factory, now called Vitesco, a few years ago some of the FIOM delegates, also members of the opposition area in CGIL, had left the regime union to join USB.
However, these delegates came into a bitter clash with the local USB leadership, including USB delegates at Piaggio.
In this clash, the USB delegates at Vitesco sought support within the union, and thus came into contact with us, who are known to be in opposition to the positions of the national leadership.
In the relationship that was established, the bad conduct of the local USB leadership in the Vitesco and Piaggio factories emerged.
The USB delegates from Vitesco, along with a member of the USB provincial executive, finally decided to leave that rank and file union and also joined SIAL COBAS.
Nevertheless, the relationship with us was maintained and these delegates came closer to the CLA.
The second leafleting carried out by the CLA was on September 9 at a postal center in Ponsacco (Pisa) where a worker had died a few days earlier.
Finally, on September 12, a document was published, drafted by one of our comrades and only modified to a small extent, entitled “Against the rising cost of living a united action of militant unionism is necessary for the construction of a general movement for strong wage increases”.
This document takes up and reiterates the indication given by our party, expressed in the leaflet distributed in Genoa on Sept. 1 at a national assembly of the USB against the war, titled “The first step in stopping imperialist war is to strike and refuse to pay its costs”.
This party leaflet was distributed in Genoa at the subway station in a proletarian neighborhood of the city over several days.
* * *
The party leaflet and the CLA leaflet were distributed at an assembly in Rome on Saturday, Sept. 17, called the “Proletarian Anti-Capitalist Assembly”. Two of our comrades and two union militants from the CLA were present at it.
This assembly is intended to be a body with a permanent character and is what remains of the Anti-Capitalist Action Pact that was created three years ago by the SI COBAS leadership, finding mainly support outside the union in the Stalinist political group Communist Youth Front.
This operation of the SI COBAS leadership was strongly criticized by us, because it tended to create a hybrid body between party and union, even before the political positions expressed.
We had also expressed the easy prediction of a premature death, of such a Pact of Action, which invariably occurred, at the behest of the two forces that had promoted it, SI COBAS leadership and FGC.
Some smaller forces that had joined it, more correct in conduct but equally confused and opportunistic, didn’t want to abandon the project, and with much smaller forces renamed it the “Proletarian Anti-Capitalist Assembly”.
We can then characterize this proposal as having the same flaws as the Action Pact promoted by the SI COBAS leadership, with the only difference being that it declares more clearly that it wants to constitute a union-party body.
One of our comrades intervened by reiterating, in a very well articulated speech, the need to keep the two spheres, union and party, distinct.
* * *
The day after the Roman assembly at which we spoke, a national assembly of SI COBAS was held in Bologna. Neither our comrades nor any CLA militants were able to attend.
Compared to similar assemblies organized by SI COBAS in past years, this one was not convened behind the screen of the so-called “Assembly of Combative Workers”.
The latter was nothing more than an instrument of the Action Pact to try to give it a broader base of support. It had to forcibly remain subordinate to the directives of the Covenant of Action and, where this was not possible, as in Rome, it was made to die by its promoters, i.e., the leaders of the SI COBAS and the FGC.
The fact that the assembly this year was convened not in the name of this body but of the SI COBAS is confirmation of the death of both the Covenant of Action and the Assembly of Combative Workers, but above all – what only matters to us – of the short-sightedness and opportunism of the leadership of this union.
The Bologna assembly saw on the one hand less participation than previous editions in years past, and on the other a heightened characterization in a party sense, with a more evident presence of the front of political groups that directs SI COBAS, called Revolutionary Internationalist Tendency.
This is yet another confirmation of the persistence of these leaders in their opportunism, in the error of wanting to overcome the difficulties of the class struggle with the illusory shortcut of building a half-union, half-party organism.