Today's Topics:
1. Poland, ozzip: Mass lawsuits regarding porters and porters
in Greater Poland (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. CORECTED Poland, ozzip: Mass lawsuits regarding porters and
porters in Greater Poland (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. France, Union Communiste Libertaire UCL AL #305 - Spotlight,
Montreuil Hospital (93): On the front, shortage and D system (fr,
it, pt)[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. France, Union Communiste Libertaire AL #305 - Spotlight,
Poor housing: For a moratorium on unpaid rents (fr, it,
pt)[machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. Britain, anarchist cmmunist group ACG: Bungling incompetents
or systemic problem: decision-making during the pandemic
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
6. Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement AWSM: Artists urge end
to Israel's siege of Gaza amid coronavirus crisis
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
7. France, Union Communiste Libertaire - Webdito UCL Toulouse
and surroundings, Elderly and Dependent: Don't Let Them Die at
the Hands of Capitalist Scavengers (fr, it, pt)[machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
8. anarkismo.net: Our Morals and Theirs by Wayne Price
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
32 lawsuits were filed in courts related to the exploitation of the work of doormen and porters who had previously reported to the Workers'
Initiative asking for intervention - mainly due to non-payment of overdue remuneration. Initially, it concerned about 25 people guarding the
city facilities in Poznan. Currently, injured persons also report from other places. ---- Since August 2018, the Employee Initiative has
been supporting Poznan porters and porters fighting against exploitation and demanding overdue remuneration. Many security companies and
temporary work agencies are involved. In view of the powerlessness of the National Labor Inspectorate, which admitted that it is not able to
enforce the observance of employees' rights in this case, and in the face of the sluggish investigation of the prosecutor's office, the
union asked the lawyer's office Marcin Czachor for help. 32 lawsuits have already been filed in this case and others are being prepared.
Glówna czesc spraw dotyczy firm KAIO i CAPREA. W tych przypadkach zlozono pozwy o ustalenie istnienia stosunku pracy, wyplat zaleglych
wynagrodzen, wyplat ekwiwalentów za niewykorzystane urlopy i w niektórych przypadkach odszkodowanie za niezgodne z prawem rozwiazanie umowy
bez wypowiedzenia. Dodatkowo toczy sie tu postepowanie prokuratorskie w sprawie uporczywego naruszania praw pracowniczych, w którym takze
umocowany jest adwokat Marcin Czachor jako pelnomocnik pokrzywdzonych. Na te chwile prokuratura nikomu nie postawila zarzutów, choc
postepowanie trwa juz kilkanascie miesiecy.
In the meantime, more victims from Poznan (six people) came to the Employee Initiative and were not paid for January 2020 - they were
employed by APT KG PREMIUM SERVICE LTD. Notified about this fact at the end of March, the National Labor Inspectorate stated in its letter
to the association that "control activities due to the epidemic situation (...) have been suspended until further notice".
Injured security guards from other cities, including - as we informed a few days ago - from Warsaw also applied to the union .
In addition, a lawsuit was filed against the company HUNTERS (currently performing the property supervision service at the request of the
Board of Municipal Housing Resources in Poznan) for discrimination for the trade union activity of the employee initiative Initiative
Krystyna Wilk.
The first hearings - due to the epidemiological situation - will probably not start until the autumn.
http://ozzip.pl/informacje/wielkopolskie/item/2651-masowe-pozwy-w-sprawie-portierek-i-portierow
------------------------------
Message: 2
32 lawsuits were filed in courts related to the exploitation of the work of doormen and porters who had previously reported to the Workers'
Initiative asking for intervention - mainly due to non-payment of overdue remuneration. Initially, it concerned about 25 people guarding the
city facilities in Poznan. Currently, injured persons also report from other places. ---- Since August 2018, the Employee Initiative has
been supporting Poznan porters and porters fighting against exploitation and demanding overdue remuneration. Many security companies and
temporary work agencies are involved. In view of the powerlessness of the National Labor Inspectorate, which admitted that it is not able to
enforce the observance of employees' rights in this case, and in the face of the sluggish investigation of the prosecutor's office, the
union asked the lawyer's office Marcin Czachor for help. 32 lawsuits have already been filed in this case and others are being prepared.
The main part of matters concerns KAIO and CAPREA companies. In these cases, lawsuits were filed to establish the existence of an employment
relationship, payment of overdue remuneration, payment of equivalents for unused holidays and in some cases compensation for unlawful
termination without notice. In addition, prosecution proceedings are underway in the case of persistent violation of employee rights, in
which lawyer Marcin Czachor is also authorized as the representative of the victims. At the moment, the prosecutor's office has not charged
anyone, although the proceedings have been ongoing for several months.
In the meantime, more victims from Poznan (six people) came to the Employee Initiative and were not paid for January 2020 - they were
employed by APT KG PREMIUM SERVICE LTD. Notified about this fact at the end of March, the National Labor Inspectorate stated in its letter
to the association that "control activities due to the epidemic situation (...) have been suspended until further notice".
Injured security guards from other cities, including - as we informed a few days ago - from Warsaw also applied to the union .
In addition, a lawsuit was filed against the company HUNTERS (currently performing the property supervision service at the request of the
Board of Municipal Housing Resources in Poznan) for discrimination for the trade union activity of the employee initiative Initiative
Krystyna Wilk.
The first hearings - due to the epidemiological situation - will probably not start until the autumn.
http://ozzip.pl/informacje/wielkopolskie/item/2651-masowe-pozwy-w-sprawie-portierek-i-portierow
------------------------------
Message: 3
Lack of bed and caregivers ? There is obviously an emergency plan for the public hospital. Lack of equipment ? It is the fault of a
fragmented productive system, completely beyond the control of the population. Disorganization of the care offer between public and private
? We need a single system, as part of the socialization of the health system. Illustration at the Montreuil intercommunal hospital. ----
"From March 26, just a few days after my arrival, I no longer consulted in the premises, but in a barnum installed in the courtyard," says
Noémie, intern in general medicine at the hospital, arriving at the intercommunal hospital center André-Grégoire de Montreuil (93) on March
22 as a volunteer. The "tent", as the hospital staff call it, was kindly provided by fairgrounds installed in the area, lacking activity
during the period.
Of the 392 hospital beds, 170 are used, at the peak of the epidemic, by "Covid patients". Entire departments, emptied of their usual
patients, are reorganized to accommodate them. One morning, Noémie meets with workers. To change electrical outlets ? No, to install oxygen
outlets, so that patients can be installed in the corridor. The role of Naomi and Laura (nursing student in 3 th year, also voluntary
arrival) is simple: following a diagnosis, hospital patients or send them home. "Out of 30 people, 25 were fired, including 5 for whom we
were really worried," says Noémie. "For example, due to the lack of free beds, I sent a six-month pregnant woman home, who had eight days of
fever. Or an 83-year-old lady in a very disturbing condition. Very stressed, I called them several times afterwards" . At the peak of the
epidemic, the answer is always the same: we do not intubate patients over the age of 70, subject to chronic diseases.
André-Grégoire hospital is a particularly indebted hospital, and has been dependent since 2012 on successive contracts signed with the ARS,
contracts under conditions: permanent transfers, casualization, bed closings. It is estimated that almost 40 beds, that is to say nearly 10%
of the hospitalization capacity, have been eliminated since 2012. These are the same beds that could have made it possible, for example, to
avoid "Covid patients" in serious condition to be sent home, or hospital patients to be placed on stretchers in the hallways. We will not
forget, we will not forgive. "When I arrived at the hospital, the FFP2 masks had already arrived, after an almost total absence during the
first weeks," explains Laura."It is the health manager who has the masks locked up, in a wardrobe, and who distributes them. But it's still
under tension. I have the impression that it is the main source of stress and discussion between caregivers. Me, the fear of catching the
Covid prevents me from sleeping at night, like many I think."
Resourcefulness becomes the rule. Normally, the blouses are disposable, thrown at noon, but it was decided to keep them all day. Then wash
them instead of throwing them away, which of course destroyed them. Since the beginning of April, Noémie and Laura have had blouses, but
always only one per day, and at the price of an edifying arrangement: it is, as in various hospitals, a donation made by the French luxury
brand Chanel. This shows several things: on the one hand, it is possible that the textile industry in France (or what is left of it)
produces the necessary equipment in times of crisis.
The only reasonable solution is the establishment of a unified health system, placed outside the laws of the market, placed under the
control of employees and users, sufficiently coherent to absorb this type of shock.
DR
Lack of resources in the public hospital
On the other hand, there is no political will to force it to do so, and we are expecting a gesture of charity for this, in this case from a
company whose turnover is amounts to 10 billion euros per year. Finally, our response as libertarian communists: it is urgent to requisition
the industry to produce the essential protections for carers and the population.
Elsewhere, especially in Saint-Denis, teachers went to look for equipment in their establishments to bring it to their city hospital. These
solidarity initiatives are the initiative of a joint call between SUD santé-sociales and SUD education. Beyond pointing the finger at the
lack of resources, this outlines a historic function of the trade union movement in times of crisis: taking vital goods where they are, and
organizing solidarity without waiting for the bosses and the State.
It is not only the essential protections against the Covid that are lacking at André-Grégoire hospital. Noémie tells us. "One morning a man
walks into the tent. The state is very worrying. It is transferred to the shock (emergency box for vital care) and quickly put on a
ventilator. But the respirator does not work. Then the patient has a drop in blood pressure due to a reaction to the anesthesia, and the
resuscitator requests ephedrine. No ephedrine. We fall back on another drug. Overall we are in a shortage situation." The attention of
public opinion focused, rightly, on protection-type FFP2.
The flaws in the existence of a private health system
That said, what this crisis shows us is more serious: it is actually our entire productive system that is not adapted to a crisis of this
nature: for a simple respirator, the production chain is a complexity, and a dependence on the global flows of goods and capital so
important that its very production is impossible. It is for this reason that nearby industrial relocation is a vital issue for our society.
What to do with patients who cannot be hospitalized on site ? Noémie says: "Every morning, an assessment is made of the number of places."
At the height of the epidemic, doctors are clearly on the phone all the time trying to place or transfer patients. For example at the
Floréal clinic in Bagnolet, at the Paul-d'Éjine private hospital in Champigny, at the private hospital in eastern Paris.The problem is that
in the first weeks of the epidemic, these structures were reluctant to take the sick, and remained empty of Covid patients. And we know that
this delay in ignition is catastrophic for the management of such an epidemic.
Faced with this situation, the only reasonable solution is the establishment of a unified health system, placed outside the laws of the
market, placed under the control of employees, users and users, sufficiently coherent to absorb this type of shock. This is what we call
socialization at the Libertarian Communist Union.
Jules (UCL Montreuil)
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Hopital-de-Montreuil-93-Sur-le-front-penurie-et-systeme-D
------------------------------
Message: 4
In this period of confinement, many are those who are left without help in the face of the state of health emergency. Badly housed,
homeless, undocumented, precarious tenants are left without resources and destitute. ---- Like the dismantling of the public hospital,
housing policies have the same disastrous consequences in this period of health emergency. The confinement imposed on the population quickly
turns into hell for the four million poorly housed and the 143,000 homeless [1]in mainland France, for whom nothing has been planned
upstream. ---- In each large metropolis, hundreds of people, among the most vulnerable, have been abandoned on the street or in makeshift
shelters and other shantytowns without running water, exiles, young foreigners and foreign minors who are not recognized as such, deprived
of food aid distributed by associations, and it was only a week after the start of confinement that the State began to tinker with some
accommodation solutions in collective structures such as gymnasiums, unsuitable for a fight against the epidemic, desertification centers
(sic) or low-end hotels where promiscuity is the rule.
However, as early as March, associations [2]urgently seized the Council of State to request the requisition of tourist furnished rental
accommodation (airBnB) and vacant hotel rooms, to shelter the homeless, exiles and the 218,000 overcrowded households, as well as access to
essential medical equipment for the protection of these people and the nursing staff. Application dismissed, like that initiated by five
other associations [3]who asked for the closure of the Administrative Detention Centers, despite the calls for help made by the
undocumented migrants who remain locked up there while there is no longer any flight abroad. The requisition by the State of the very large
number of empty dwellings remains the only just and dignified solution.
One in ten tenants in debt
However, the greatest number of those who will suffer, in the long term, from this confinement are certainly the tenants, who represent
39.9% of the population (42.6% in the public park and 57.4% in the private) and who suffer a fall in income (partial unemployment or total
absence of income) and increased expenditure (absence of canteens, increased consumption of fluids). One in ten tenants had rent debts
before the state of emergency. How many will be threatened with eviction in a few months ?
While in Germany, Canada, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and even Switzerland, various measures have been taken to help tenants, the French
government is considering nothing more than rent aid ... Businesses !
Droit au Logement (Dal) and many supporters have decided to challenge this government and public and private lessors in favor of a rent
moratorium for tenants in difficulty. For a moratorium during the epidemic [4]builds a movement of solidarity between tenants and their
supporters, calling on those who can (without putting themselves in difficulty) to suspend their rent until obtaining a moratorium. The "
after " must be built today !
Clo (UCL 93 Center)
Validate
[1] Source FAP 2020
[2] DAL Federation, Kâlî, LDH, Elected officials against violence against women, Emergency rights, Gisti, Utopia 56, Christian action
against torture
[3] ADDE, Cimade, SAF, GISTI and CNB
[4] Call available on the Loyersuspendu.org website
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Mal-logement-Pour-un-moratoire-sur-les-loyers-impayes
------------------------------
Message: 5
Watching Johnson and his lackeys deliver the daily bulletin or explain the new lockdown rules makes you want to scream with despair and
anger. How can they be so incompetent? (See this for a spoof of Johnson on easing lockdown). ---- There is an element in which our leaders
are ill-equipped to do the job at hand. Being educated in the public school system and getting where they are through money and connections
does not prepare people to manage a serious crisis. ‘I say old chap- bit of a problem we've got on our hands' just doesn't cut it. This is
not the first time that the ruling elite has made a mess of things. The two world wars are examples of the Oxbridge officer class making
decisions that led to millions dying. They didn't spare themselves, though; many of the officers lost their lives in WWI. But this just goes
to show their general incompetence - they can't even keep themselves from being killed! Johnson's catching corona virus is a similar
situation. He doesn't understand the virus and what needs to be done so ends of not following basic social distancing rules. He was still
shaking hands with people on the ward when he recovered!
Looking around at other countries, it seems that there are more competent leaders. Germany had many more cases than the UK yet managed to
keep the death rate to under 100 per million, whereas the UK's death rate is approaching 500. However, no country has really managed to deal
with the virus and with the general economic and social problems associated with it. There is no doubt that the situation is extremely
difficult but we need to look at what could have been done differently, disregarding for the moment the actual root causes, in terms of
developing a strategy once the virus started spreading. It is not the decisions so much that are the problem, but how those decisions have
been made and implemented (or not!). The problem is in the system itself, not in the quality of those making decisions.
The government
One of the main issues is that people rely on the government to make decisions for them. This is a problem with parliamentary democracy.
People vote for a government and then passively wait for them to do things. This has been shown with the coronavirus in the way so many wait
for the government guidance on what to do. While the government hadn't said anything and was busy doing nothing, most people continued life
as normal with shops, workplaces, restaurants, pubs, schools, and other gathering places all open. It wasn't until Johnson actually
announced lockdown that the majority then began to shut.
Some people didn't wait for Johnson to pronounce on something that many people knew to be a necessity. The May Day Rooms in London, a social
centre used by many radical groups, made the decision to close down two weeks before Johnson's announcement. It got some flack for this
decision, but subsequent events proved them right. Other groups also began to cancel events or close their shops or venue without waiting
for the government's advice. If others had taken such action earlier than many deaths might have been avoided.
The scandal of care homes is another example. It has now been revealed that the government told care homes in the first stages of the
pandemic that no particular action was necessary.So even though there must have been ample evidence at the time that the situation would
soon become very serious, care homes followed government advice.
Another problem with bourgeois democracy is that people aren't involved in decision-making and this situation has become worse in a crisis
situation. All the decisions are made by a small group of people around the Prime Minister who in theory are following the best scientific
advice, though which science is being used is suspect. The easing of the lockdown rules illustrates the problems with ignoring people's
experience and views. People are being encouraged to go back to work but any worker can tell you that there are a host of problems with
making such an announcement. Transport is not prepared for an influx of commuters and workplaces are not ready or able to manage social
distancing. This can only mean that the cases, which haven't really fallen that much any way, could soon be on the rise again. The decision
to let people travel any distance, including to popular places like the national parks, was clearly made without any consultation with local
communities and park authorities. They are now faced with dealing with the problems caused by the government's decision without any time or
resources to cope. Some people will ignore common sense and when faced with hostile locals will argue: ‘Johnson said we could come!'
Principles of anarchist communism include self-organisation and complete participation in decision-making. In workplaces, communities,
hospitals, care homes and schools, it should be the workers and users themselves who are making decisions about how to ensure safety and
what rules to apply. This would involve wide-spread discussion and debate. Top-down rules do not work anyway. The only ones that will be
effective are ones that have been made collectively by everyone. Some may not agree but if the vast majority have established a set of rules
or codes of behaviour then people must go along with the majority. This will not always be the case, if the minority can carry on their
activities without harming others. With coronavirus that is not so easy to do. If people had been pro-active when the virus first appeared,
whether that be in China itself or in other countries, rather than just waiting for the government, then maybe things could have been different.
Capitalism
One of the main obstacles to self-organised decision-making is the fact that these decisions are made within the context of capitalism. The
delay in starting lockdown was not only because Johnson was following bad science; he didn't want to bring the economy to a standstill. Many
businesses only shut when they absolutely had to because they did not want to lose profits. Big business would be able to weather the storm
but people like Richard Branson don't want to lose any profits. Smaller businesses may very well go under. This is the way capitalism works.
Many workers would have supported the delay in closing because their livelihood depends on capitalism working. It is very hard to prioritise
health when you have lost your income and are in dire financial difficulties. Therefore, people will end up making decisions that aggravate
the situation. The current move back to work is also motivated by the need to avoid a recession and the loss of profits. Much of the work is
not actually essential or even desirable. For example, so much of construction in London is for luxury flats. Workers, though will not have
much choice in what they do. They need the job and won't be paid unless they go in.
Care homes can illustrate the problems of decision-making in a capitalist system.95% are privately owned and therefore they exist to make a
profit. They had every motivation to follow Johnson's advice and not take the necessary measures to ensure safety such as making sure all
residents were social distancing, extra cleaning and PPE for all staff. It was only when the situation got so bad that it could no longer be
ignored that the government and the bosses of care homes took action. The care workers would have been the first to see what was going on
but would have been powerless to do anything. Not only did many of them care about the residents so were willing to work in unsafe
conditions, but they could also not afford to stay at home.
Coronavirus has shown up another serious weakness of capitalism. One of the main weaknesses of the government was not actually implementing
decisions made. Everyone agreed that we needed more PPE and more testing but the government then relied on capitalist enterprise to deliver
the goods and this was a disaster. Given all the capacity in Britain to produce unwanted goods such as military equipment, it was
staggeringly alarming how manufacturing could not produce basic PPE and enough testing material. Without the motive of profit, companies
seem unable to act. Instead, we have staff sewing their own PPE and groups of volunteers sewing at home. This shows how self-organisation
from the bottom up is more effective than relying on the market.
An alternative?
In order to have the conditions for self-organisation and collective decision-making, we need an economic system that is based on common
ownership. Only then will people have access to what they need and be free to make the decisions that will benefit all rather than a few. It
is hard to imagine how this will work as it would be so different from what we have now. If we just take the example of health care, though,
we can get some idea. If care homes were run collectively by the staff and residents and there was no need to make a profit, then decisions
would have been very different. There would be the issue of getting the products they needed but if there were other collectives producing
PPE and other collectives producing and distributing food, then exchanges could be made. All this would be easier if there was more
co-ordination on a local level so that things like food could be provided from a local farm and testing could be done by a local clinic.
People could be brought together to make decisions and co-ordinate in assemblies- easier to manage on a local level.
A lot of thinking needs to be done on how an alternative economy would work. But Covid 19 is showing us that capitalism and parliamentary
democracy are definitely not working. We need to develop and facilitate other ways of organising production and distribution as part of a
general revolutionary strategy for an anarchist communist society.
https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/2020/05/15/bungling-incompetents-or-systemic-problem-decision-making-during-the-pandemic/
------------------------------
Message: 6
Philip Pullman, Alia Shawkat, Peter Gabriel and 200 others back Amnesty International's call for a military embargo on Israel "until it
fully complies with its obligations under international law" ---- Philip Pullman, Naomi Klein, Peter Gabriel, Alia Shawkat, Vic Mensa and
Viggo Mortensen Jr. are among more than two hundred musicians, actors, filmmakers, authors and others calling for an end to Israel's siege
of the Gaza Strip amid the coronavirus crisis. ---- In an open letter published on Wednesday, they write, "Gaza's almost two million
inhabitants, predominantly refugees, face a mortal threat in the world's largest open-air prison." ---- The first cases of coronavirus in
blockaded Gaza were reported in March. Palestinian, Israeli and international humanitarian and human rights organisations have called for
the lifting of Israel's siege so that Gaza can address its severe shortages of medical equipment.
Authors Irvine Welsh and Jeanette Winterson, actors Julie Christie and Steve Coogan, and sculptor Antony Gormley are also signatories to the
letter, which states:
"International pressure is urgently needed to make life in Gaza liveable and dignified. Israel's siege must be ended. And most urgently, a
potentially devastating outbreak must be prevented."
Marking two years since Israel killed sixty Palestinian protestors in Gaza, the signatories - including Irish novelist Colm Tóibín, visual
artists Kevin Beasley and Shepard Fairey, and 2019 Turner Prize co-winners Tai Shani and Lawrence Abu Hamdan - continue:
"What happens in Gaza is a test for the conscience of humanity. We back Amnesty International's call on all world governments to impose a
military embargo on Israel until it fully complies with its obligations under international law."
Film producer and director James Schamus, actors Peter Mullan and Liam Cunningham and artists Charlotte Prodger, Mark Wallinger and Helen
Marten join pioneering poet K. Satchidanandan, novelist and screenwriter Candace Allen, composer and producer Brian Eno and musicians Roger
Waters and Massive Attack in signing the letter, which concludes:
"We recognise that the rights guaranteed to refugees by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be upheld for Palestinians as well.
In these times of international crisis, we must stand for justice, peace, freedom, and equal rights for all, regardless of identity or
creed. We may be staying at home, but our ethical responsibility shouldn't."
Read the full letter:
Long before the global outbreak of COVID-19 threatened to overwhelm the already devastated healthcare system in Gaza, the UN had predicted
that the blockaded coastal strip would be unliveable by 2020. With the pandemic, Gaza's almost two million inhabitants, predominantly
refugees, face a mortal threat in the world's largest open-air prison.
Two years ago on May 14th, Israeli snipers killed sixty Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza, with total impunity. The overwhelmingly
peaceful Great March of Return weekly mass demonstrations, currently on hold due to the threat of coronavirus, were met with brutal violence.
Well before the ongoing crisis, Gaza's hospitals were already stretched to breaking point through lack of essential resources denied by
Israel's siege. Its healthcare system could not cope with the thousands of gunshot wounds, leading to many amputations.
Reports of the first cases of coronavirus in densely-populated Gaza are therefore deeply disturbing. As several health professionals
recently wrote: "Epidemics (and indeed, pandemics) are disproportionately violent to populations burdened by poverty, military occupation,
discrimination & institutionalised oppression."
Yet Israel's blockade impedes the flow of medical equipment, personnel and fundamental humanitarian aid. International pressure is urgently
needed to make life in Gaza liveable and dignified. Israel's siege must be ended. And most urgently, a potentially devastating outbreak must
be prevented.
What happens in Gaza is a test for the conscience of humanity. We back Amnesty International's call on all world governments to impose a
military embargo on Israel until it fully complies with its obligations under international law. We recognise that the rights guaranteed to
refugees by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be upheld for Palestinians as well.
In these times of international crisis, we must stand for justice, peace, freedom, and equal rights for all, regardless of identity or
creed. We may be staying at home, but our ethical responsibility shouldn't.
https://awsm.nz/?p=5351
------------------------------
Message: 7
The fact that the elderly are more likely to contract the disease does not in itself explain the tremendous death rate in nursing homes. The
frenzied privatization of the state and the budget cuts paid by employees and residents are also responsible for the deterioration in the
quality of care and the lack of equipment and personnel. ---- The Covid-19 epidemic hitting the world particularly affects the oldest. If at
the beginning the figures announced by the government only concerned hospitals, many voices were raised so that the count also concerns
retirement homes. To date, more than 8,300 people have died in nursing homes, or almost 1.5% of the population of these establishments. The
situation is different depending on retirement homes and some have been particularly affected, such as in Mougins where a third of residents
died from Covid-19 [1], or in Saint-Germain-en-Laye where deaths represent a quarter of residents [2]. But the situation is also dramatic in
many others, despite the hard work of the staff. All these people died far from their loved ones because of confinement but not only. And
there are many complaints from families.
A screed of lead on these deaths
Indeed, these were often warned late and sometimes indirectly by the press. In reality, it is a screed of lead that has been placed on these
retirement homes: families have thus received false news about their loved ones, via retirement homes who told them that everything was fine
while they were sick , on respirators or hospitalized. Worse, during the deaths the causes of death were not always revealed immediately to
relatives.
The reasons for this omerta are due to two reasons: on the one hand the Regional Health Agencies (ARS) which are the local intermediaries of
the Ministry of Health and who, in a technocratic logic, asked the retirement homes not to broadcast this information ; on the other hand,
on the side of certain private groups, a logic of marketing, within the framework of a competitive market where the residents and their
families are the "clients" and where it is a question of showing good image at all costs by deliberately masking what is wrong [3].
A number of deaths that question
Another question: how to explain this massacre ? The argument of the age and frailty of the public concerned is not sufficient. In many
retirement homes, the employees alerted the authorities very early on to the lack of protective equipment or personnel to organize
confinement and body distances in these establishments. Some have even been dismissed for raising the alarm [4]. There too, the amateurism
of the public or private authorities was total and is undoubtedly responsible for this high number of deaths.
Responsibilities will need to be determined and those responsible will be accountable. Because, beyond the Covid-19 epidemic, what
highlights this scandal is the carelessness that reigns in these establishments to the detriment of the people in care and the employees.
A state-organized privatization ...
Since 1997 the state has organized rampant privatization of retirement homes. First, by creating a competitive market and opening it up to
private for-profit companies. Then, by operating in a tendering logic and by imposing public management standards (evaluation, performance,
austerity) which have favored the emergence and development of private for-profit establishments to the detriment of public establishments
such as those private non-profit [5]who were subject to a performance logic. Large private groups thus have a growing hand on the 7200 EPHAD
market and represent around a third of these. The market is juicy: thus for a nursing home, of 121 beds, private for-profit in the south of
France the annual profit is 400,000 euros before tax [3]! No wonder that pension funds are investing in this market: absolute cynicism of
capitalism when retirement savings are used to exploit old dependence ! And while we count our deaths the leaders of private groups settle
in the greatest fortunes of France [6].
... On the backs of employees and residents
This privatization through the development of the lucrative private offer and the development of a performance logic in other establishments
has a double consequence.
On the one hand, the working conditions are deplorable: in the EHPAD there are three times more accidents at work declared than in the
national average because of trying working conditions (shift schedules, pressure on the output, understaffing ) in the context of the
development of precarious contracts (subsidized contracts, temporary work) for a sector which hires 87% of women, often single mothers [7].
On the other hand, on the reception and living conditions of the people accommodated. Some nursing homes have a budget of only 4 euros per
resident for all meals for the day [3], the pressure on output leads the employees · es to have to rationalize in an industrial way the time
of toilet, meal, etc. This staff therefore has no leeway to establish social ties with the residents, whereas these elderly people are by
relative or complete isolation, in a certain lack of affective relationship. Finally, this privatization leads nearly half of the EHPAD,
like any business, to lie, to deceive its "customers" on the tariffs or the services in a logic of pressurization of the "customer" [8].
Socialization of the EPHAD: for a public service for dependent elderly people
These data highlight the deeply deadly logic of capitalism. The capitalists, whether they act in private groups or in the service of a
bourgeois state, watch only for their profits. And in the context of an aging population, they find a way to make money on the backs of
people at the end of life or dependent ! No sense of dignity or respect for death or old age in these scavengers !
This is why it is urgent to end the privatization of these EHPAD, the logic of austerity and performance imposed by the State. We must
achieve the socialization of these establishments and the development of a public service of old age and dependency, where employees,
residents and their families would decide themselves the means to be implemented to satisfy the basic needs of this fragile population.
In the same way it is just as urgent to develop a consequent public service of the home help for all and all those who wish and can stay at
home while in this sector, managed by big associations within the framework of budgetary austerity, employees are subject to very high
precariousness. This example shows once again that it will be beneficial to get rid of capitalist predation.
Profits against our health, whatever our age, together against capital and united in the face of the health crisis !
Toulouse Group and surroundings of UCL on May 2, 2020
[1] Ehpad: the dead, families and the wall of silence , by Béatrice Jérôme, Lorraine de Foucher and Sofia Fischer for Le Monde on April 23, 2020
[2] Families fight in front of mute Ehpad directions , by Mathilde Goanec for Médiapart April 8, 2020
[3] Abuse in a retirement home: "The business of seniors is unforgiving" , by Marc Payet for the Parisian on February 26, 2019
[4] Two nurses "fired" from an Toulouse nursing home because they were asking for masks, the police intervened , by Géraldine Jammet for La
Dépêche on April 21, 2020
[5] The process of privatization of the accommodations sector for the elderly , by Ilona and Laura Delouette Nirello in Management and
Journal of Medical Economics 2016/7 (Vol. 34) on 1 stMarch 2017
[6] CHALLENGES ranking of fortunes in France: owners of EHPAD operators in good position , by EHPAD.com
[7] Distressed old age in nursing homes , by Philippe Baqué for Le Monde Diplomatique in May 2019
[8] One in two retirement homes deceives its clients , by Mathilde Golla for Le Figaro on March 17, 2014
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Age-es-et-dependant-es-ne-les-laissons-pas-mourir-aux-mains-des-charognards
------------------------------
Message: 8
Means and Ends in Anarchist, Liberal, and Marxist Morals ---- During the late 1930s, Leon Trotsky and John Dewey, a leading U.S. liberal,
wrote essays on the relation of means and ends in politics, and on whether Leninism led to Stalinism. I am going to discuss these works from
an anarchist perspective. ---- In 1938, the Marxist revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, wrote an essay, Their Morals and Ours-usually reprinted
with a sequel from a year later, "The Moralists and Sycophants against Marxism." (Trotsky, Dewey, & Novack 1966) His subject was the
relation between means and ends in politics. In particular he sought to counter the claim that the methods of Marxism, as carried out by
Lenin and himself during the Russian Revolution, led to the horrors of Stalin's mass-murdering totalitarianism. His follower, George Novack,
believed, "This treatment of the problem of means and ends in collective action and individual conduct is one of Trotsky's most valuable
contributions to Marxist theory." (6)
Some months after Trotsky's first essay, there was a critical response by the philosopher, John Dewey: "Means and Ends." (Trotsky et al.
1966) The leading U.S. philosopher of pragmatism (experimentalism), progressive education, and liberalism, he had met Trotsky earlier. Dewey
had gone to Mexico in 1937 to chair the International Commission of Inquiry into the Moscow Trials (also known as the Dewey Commission).
This had given Trotsky a chance to testify under cross-examination, to defend himself against Stalin's charges that he had worked for
fascists to betray the Russian Revolution and sabotage the Soviet Union. The Commission had concluded that Trotsky was innocent and that the
charges were a frame-up.
Trotsky never got to respond to Dewey's comments on his essay. In 1940, he was murdered in Mexico by an agent of Stalin. There have been
various discussions of these expressions of views by Trotsky and Dewey, mostly by liberals and Trotskyists. As far as I know, there has not
been a discussion of these opinions from an anarchist perspective. This is even though Trotsky repeatedly stated that, to a major extent, he
was directing his arguments against anarchists. His opening sentence stated his opposition to "Messrs. democrats, social-democrats,
anarchists, and other representatives of the ‘left' camp." (13) He sneered at "idealistic Philistines-among whom anarchists of course occupy
first place...." (21-22) "But perhaps the most lamentable role is that played by the anarchists." (27) Much of the sequel essay is an attack
on Victor Serge, a former anarchist. This suggests that an anarchist response may be useful.
It might be objected that anarchism has so little in common with either liberalism or Trotsky's Marxism that not much can be learned from
examining either. It is true that both ideologies are committed to the use of the state in changing society-a fundamental difference from
anarchism. But revolutionary anarchists shared with Trotsky the goal of overthrowing the capitalist system and the existing (capitalist)
state, and replacing them with alternate institutions. (I am speaking of the school of revolutionary anarchism, from Bakunin and Kropotkin
to the anarcho-syndicalists and communist-anarchists.) And anarchists share with Dewey's version of liberalism the goal of a society which
is cooperative, non-capitalist, radically democratic and self-managed, rooted in neighborly communities and workers' managed industries, and
intelligently experimental. Dewey was quite to the left of most liberals, then and now. For example, he opposed Roosevelt's New Deal, and
the Democratic Party, from the left. (For the relation between Dewey's pragmatist/experimentalist philosophy and anarchism, see Price 2015.)
Philosophically, both Trotsky and Dewey rejected supernaturalism or a divine basis for morality. They believed that morals were rooted in
human activities, interests, and institutions. Trotsky regarded himself as a "materialist" while Dewey called himself a "naturalist." They
believed that moral actions should be judged by their consequences, rather than by absolute standards. In this sense, "the ends justify the
means." But ends could only "justify" means if the means really resulted in desirable ends.
Trotsky declared, "In practical life as in the historical movement, the end and the means constantly change places." (19) This is "the
dialectic interdependence between means and end..." (42) Likewise, Dewey referred to the "principle of interdependence of means and end."
(56) Means are good if they produce good ends (not just what someone claims will be good ends, but really results in them). Good, desirable,
ends justify the means only if they can be reached by these means-and if they lead on to further, valued, means-and-ends.
Neither Trotsky or Dewey looked to "final ends," but Trotsky did propose a standard for judging ends. "...The end is justified if it leads
to increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man." (40) Dewey agreed with this standard:
"...Others than Marxists might accept this formulation of the end and hold it expresses the moral interest of society...." (56)
Since Trotsky's formulation may be interpreted in a patriarchal and "promethean" fashion, let me rephrase it: The end is justified if it
leads to increasing the ability of humans to satisfy their needs through productive interaction with nature and to the abolition of the
power of some humans over others.
Anarchists have held all sorts of views on philosophy and religion. Yet I think that most could agree with such an approach. However, it is
extremely vague. Differences lie in the application of such abstractions.
Trotsky's Argument
Trotsky's argument may be summarized in this way: from time to time, oppressed and exploited humans have risen up against their rulers.
Whether slaves or colonized people or the modern working class, this resistance is justified. It may require mass violence, killing,
sacrifice and suffering, the accidental deaths of bystanders, and all sorts of terrible things we otherwise want to avoid-but if necessary
to liberate oppressed humanity, then we should not reject such means or despise those who use them.
He refused to equate "a slave-owner who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning or violence
breaks his chains...." (33) In the fight against the fascists in the Spanish civil war of 1936-39, "Whoever accepts the end-victory over
Franco, must accept the means: civil war with its wake of horrors and crimes." (31) He pointed out that the Spanish anarchists waged violent
war against the fascist forces.
This does not mean that all means are acceptable. "That is permissible...which really leads to the liberation of mankind....The great
revolutionary end spurns those base means and ways which set one part of the working class against other parts, or attempt to make the
masses happy without their participation; or lower the faith of the masses in themselves and their organization, replacing it with worship
for the ‘leaders.' Primarily and irreconcilably, revolutionary morality rejects servility in relation to the bourgeoisie and haughtiness in
relation to the toilers....The liberation of the workers can come only through the workers themselves. There is, therefore, no greater crime
than deceiving the masses,..in a word, doing what the Stalinists do." (41-43)
As an anarchist I agree with these statements-in the abstract. Violence and armed struggle tend to be necessary when the exploited rise up
and fight for liberation. But methods should not be used which discourage self-organization and self-reliance by the struggling people. This
is well-argued and well-said.
But does it actually apply to the theory and practice of Lenin and Trotsky? Such arguments justify revolution, but do they justify the
creation of a one-party police state? This is what Lenin and Trotsky built-before Lenin died, Trotsky was exiled, and Stalin solidified his
rule. Trotsky claimed, "The October Revolution...replaced the bureaucracy with self-government of the toilers...." (28) "...The Bolshevik
Party...told the toilers the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." (38) These claims were false, and he had to know it.
The Leninists did not state that their one-party dictatorship was a temporary measure due to difficult objective conditions; rather they
justified it in principle. Even when in opposition in the Soviet Union, Trotsky and his Left Opposition had continued to support one-party
rule. Such a state meant that the workers and peasants were powerless to develop alternate political policies, to chose among competing
programs, and to govern themselves. It was not revolution (as liberals claim), but the party-state dictatorship which resulted in Stalinist
state capitalism. (Trotskyists sometime point out that Trotsky eventually came to support a sort of pluralistic, multi-tendency, democracy
in revived soviets and councils-in the 1938 "Transitional Program." This is true, but he never wrote that Lenin and he had been wrong to
adopt a one-party system nor explained why they had made this error.)
Trotsky said that the masses of workers and peasants should not be romanticized. Sometimes they are revolutionary, but often they are
passive, beaten down, or even reactionary. Therefore a revolutionary minority should organize itself to fight for its program, to seek to
persuade the rest of the working people. So far, like many anarchists, I would agree. This is in the tradition of the Bakuninists, the
platformists, the Spanish FAI, or today's especifistas. But Trotsky concluded that "a centralized organization of the vanguard is
indispensable....The internal democracy of a revolutionary party...must be supplemented and bounded by centralism." (49) Why centralism
(rule by a few from a center)? Why not a democratic federation? His view was consistent with the highly centralized vision of socialism
which Lenin and Trotsky (and other Marxists) held-and aimed to create in Russia. Their aim was a centralized economy managed by a
centralized state controlled by a centralized party.
Trotsky went on: "...If the dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of the class is armed
with the resources of the state in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the backward layers of the proletariat itself."
(My emphasis; 49) The "backward layers" are those workers who do not agree with the party. This is not the rule of the working class but the
dictatorship of a minority (the vanguard party) over the proletariat-and everyone else. Presumably the "vanguard of the class" has the right
to use a state to dominate everyone because it alone knows the Truth.
John Dewey's Argument
Dewey and Trotsky shared many values as well as underlying philosophical premises. From an anarchist perspective, in some ways Dewey was
more radical than Trotsky. Dewey rejected state socialism in favor of British guild socialism (a reformist version of anarcho-syndicalism).
To Trotsky, democracy was only instrumental. "For a Marxist, the question has always been: democracy for what? for which program?" (49) This
fit with the centralized vision of socialism held by the Leninists. For Dewey, radical democracy was a central value. He believed the
liberation of humanity was not possible without individual participation in collective decision-making, through local communities, voluntary
associations, and workers' self-managed industries. This was more than a form of state; it was "democracy as a way of life." (In my view,
anarchy would be participatory democracy without a state.)
But Dewey (wrongly, I believe) objected to Trotsky's belief in the class struggle and revolution. Surely, Dewey felt, each situation should
be examined in its concrete reality, on its own merits, rather than assuming that revolution was generally needed. Sometimes it was but
often it was not. To assume otherwise, as Trotsky did, was to abandon the method of "intelligence" for that of "force," Dewey held. Instead,
he charged, Trotsky arbitrarily and dogmatically insisted on the class struggle and revolution as absolutes.
"One would expect, then, that with the idea of the liberation of mankind as the end-in-view, there would be an examination of all means that
are likely to attain this end without any fixed preconception as to what they must be, and that every suggested means would be weighed and
judged on the express ground of the consequences it is likely to produce. But this is not the course adopted in Mr. Trotsky's further
discussion." (57)
This criticism would apply just as much to any revolutionary socialist as to Trotsky, such as revolutionary anarchist-socialists or
anti-statist/libertarian Marxists. It overlooks the enormous amount of experience which Marxists and anarchists have had with revolutions
and near-revolutions. Marx as well as Bakunin lived through the European revolution of 1848 and the Paris Commune of 1871-and wrote about
them. Kropotkin wrote a history of the French Revolution. Trotsky himself was a leader of the Russian Revolution and author of a major
history of the revolution. He also studied and wrote about revolutionary events in Germany, China, and Spain, among other places. There is a
library of anarchist writings on both the Russian and Spanish revolutions.
These revolutionary anarchists and Marxists came to the conclusion that even the most "democratic" capitalist class will not give up its
wealth and power without a fight, and that the capitalist state, which is its main defense, has to be overthrown and dismantled. If
capitalism is to be replaced. Even in formal "democracies," forceful revolution will become necessary. (This is not a question in itself of
how much violence is necessary, which does depend on circumstances.)
It is possible to argue that these theorists have been mistaken in their conclusions-but not to deny that their generalizations were
developed on the basis of a great deal of experience and experimentation. A focus on the failures of Leninism-and its failure has been
pretty clear-can lead to overlooking the history of "democratic socialism," with its peaceful, gradual, electoral strategies. These
strategies have repeatedly led to defeat, electoral losses, the ascension of neoliberalism, the rise of fascism, and the discrediting of
socialism.
Determinism and Indeterminism
Still, Dewey has a point when he critiques Trotsky for his absolutist thinking, expressed most clearly in his determinist confidence in the
inevitability of socialism. Trotsky wrote of "That inner dialectic which until now has appeared in a succession of determined stages in all
revolutions....The inevitability under certain historic conditions of the Soviet Thermidor[Stalinist counterrevolution-WP}....The
inevitability of the downfall of bourgeois democracy and its morality." (23)
Lenin and Trotsky and their comrades thought that they could be absolutely certain about the future-about their knowledge of the Truth.
Above all else, this justified-to themselves at least-the rule of a righteous minority over the rest of the workers, including the "backward
layers of the proletariat." (I think that this belief, like their centralism, was rooted in aspects of Marx's Marxism.)
Today however it would be hard to defend the idea that it is certain that socialist revolution will happen-inevitably- before ecological
catastrophe or nuclear war. As Trotsky's passage also states, we live "in a world where only change is invariable." (23)
Further, "inevitability" implies that people cannot really chose socialism as a free decision; therefore revolution, like all history, is
not something which people do, but which happens to them. This is different from the probabilistic analysis that certain forces are pushing
the oppressed toward socialist revolution and other forces are resisting it.
Trotsky asserted that his comrades "know how to swim against the current in the deep conviction that the new historic flood will carry them
to the other shore." (43) There probably will be "a new historic flood" (a revolutionary movement) but it may or may not carry us "to the
other shore" (socialism). We have to chose whether or not to risk the swim.
Dewey appears to go in the other direction, toward indeterminism. Not as a matter of his formal theory, but he wrote as if each
revolutionary situation will be unique-there is little or nothing to be learned from previous revolutions. Supposedly there is no reason to
expect conditions to repeat themselves. Yet, time and again rebellions have been defeated due to the resistance of the ruling class which
mobilized the forces of its state. Repeatedly the ruling rich have organized fascist gangs, motivated the military to overthrow civilian
governments, cancelled elections, sabotaged the economy, and set up dictatorships-until the working class and others have been beaten down.
But liberals think that perhaps this time things will be different. Perhaps this time the capitalist class will permit itself to be
"democratically" voted out of its wealth, standing, and power. Or so Dewey seems to have thought (and Bernie Sanders and Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez believe today).
More generally, indeterminism is just as bad as a hard determinism. We are not free unless we can make choices. Choices are not real unless
we can say with reasonable probability what the consequences of different acts are likely to be. We can predict with reasonable accuracy the
increasing danger of global climate change or economic collapse. That is why revolution should be chosen. But suppose it were more likely
that industrial capitalism will right itself and return to an era of prosperity, peace, and stability. Then it would be wrong to advocate
revolution, with its suffering and dangers. Unfortunately, the first, threatening, future is more probable. A refusal to generalize from
past experience is not "intelligence," it is willful blindness.
The Popular Front and Victor Serge
Other issues were raised in the pamphlet, many of which were just mentioned without discussion. This included disputes between Trotsky and
the anarchists. He mentioned, in passing, "Kronstadt and Makhno," (34) without expanding on them. Both refer to examples of Bolshevik
treachery and murderous repression, which anarchists have condemned and Trotsky had defended.
Trotsky also pointed out that, during their civil war of the thirties, Spanish anarchists were in a coalition government together with
reformist socialists, Stalinists, and pro-capitalist parties-the "Popular Front." In my opinion, the main anarchist organizations (the
syndicalist union federation and the FAI) betrayed their principles in doing this and passed up the opportunity to make a revolution. As
Trotsky wrote, they subordinated the revolution to "the salvaging of this very same bourgeois democracy which prepared fascism's success." (27)
In this case, Trotsky's criticism was correct-but so was that of a minority of revolutionary anarchists who also condemned this betrayal,
such as the Friends of Durruti Group. Anyway, this does not justify Lenin and Trotsky's policies in the Russian Revolution.
In the second, follow-up, essay, Trotsky makes a vicious and unprovoked attack on Victor Serge, who had translated the first essay. A former
comrade of Trotsky's, he had gone from anarchism to Leninism and had supported Trotsky's anti-Stalinist opposition. Trotsky and he broke
over various issues, including Serge's (mistaken) support of the participation in the Spanish Popular Front of the anarchists and the POUM
(a revolutionary party). The first essay had been published in French with an anonymous "prospectus." This summary had distorted and
criticized Trotsky's views. Trotsky drew the conclusion that this had been done by Serge. Serge denied any knowledge of the prospectus.
Trotsky still furiously denounced him in much of this supplementary essay. He accused Serge of still being influenced by anarchism and not
seeing the need for the centralized party. In fact, Serge was no longer an anarchist, but Trotsky's attack on him was grossly unfair and
irrational. It reflected his authoritarianism.
Means and Ends for Anarchists
Like the anarchists, Trotsky's Marxist goal was a classless, cooperative, self-managed society-without a state. Similarly, Dewey wanted a
thoroughly democratic system, organized through cooperative intelligence, with only a minimum of coercion, if any. But both Marxists and
radical-liberals thought that such a freely cooperative society could be won by using the state-which is a bureaucratic-military elite
institution standing over the rest of the population. Either through elections (Dewey) or revolutions (Trotsky), the state would be the tool
of the oppressed to transform capitalism into a liberated system.
But means and ends are intertwined. A free society cannot be won through authoritarian means. No doubt the ruling class would have to be
disarmed and its institutions dismantled, over its resistance. However the means for doing this is not a centralized minority dictatorship
but the self-organization of the mass of working people and oppressed. Nor can the existing state be used, through elections, to act against
the interests of the class which created it in its own image. Only through struggle from below, with self-organization through federated
workplace councils and neighborhood assemblies, can the working people free themselves.
Conclusion
On an abstract level, anarchists may agree with Trotsky and Dewey on the interdependence of means and ends in political struggle. In Dewey's
terms, "The liberation of mankind is the end to be striven for. In any legitimate sense of ‘moral,' it is a moral end." (59) Means must be
used which are productive of this end. Anarchists can further agree with Trotsky on the justification of the exploited and oppressed people
of the world revolting against their domination and using force and violence to free themselves. A great deal of historical experience has
demonstrated that the revolution of the working class and all oppressed is the only practical means of achieving human liberation.
But this must only include methods which encourage self-reliance and self-consciousness for the working people. It must not, in Trotsky's
phrasing, "attempt to make the masses happy without their participation," because "the liberation of the workers can come only through the
workers themselves." Leninism did result in Stalinism, not because it had a revolution but because, believing that they knew the final Truth
and had a highly centralized vision of socialism, they established a dictatorship of their party over the working people. The liberation of
humanity means a self-managed, radically democratic, freely cooperative society, not the dictatorship of an enlightened few.
References
Price, Wayne (2015). "Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism."
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-anarchism-and-the-philosophy-of-pragmatism
Trotsky, Leon; Dewey, John; & Novack, George. (1966). Their morals and ours; Marxist versus liberal views on morality; Four essays. NY:
Merit Publishers.
*This is an expanded version of an essay which appeared in the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31889
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten