For social movement activists, the welfare state is not a goal to be achieved,
but even represents an adversary. The much-vaunted social dialogue, even if wedon't want to consider it just a mockery used by the government to make a goodimpression, only leads to strengthening state control, albeit social, to thedetriment of the autonomy of the popular classes. ---- During this autumn'sstrike movement at the refineries of the multinationals Total and Esso, it wascustomary in many mainstream media to echo the words of the government, whichextolled "social dialogue". Élisabeth Borne, like many of her ministers, repeatedit over and over again morning, noon and night: "It is essential to get out ofthis social conflict. I personally intervened to ensure that the social dialoguetook place at Total and Esso. In these two companies, wage negotiations have ledto the signing of agreements by the unions that represent the majority ofemployees, so it is not acceptable that a minority continues to block thecountry, it is time for them to get back to work".300 times the minimum salary for the CEOA single figure is offered to us to hammer on the legitimacy of the signatoryunions: "The CFDT and the CFECGC represent 56% of the group's employees", as ifthis single figure would allow us to close the debate.Obviously no one then questioned the representativeness of these unions among theworkers actually on strike. On closer inspection, in the data of its socialreport (available on the internet), the TotalEnergies group declares 63,630employees, of which 27,181 employed in France. Among Total employees, managersare over-represented, over 44% of the workforce, while they represent only 19% ofthe working population in France. In the AGSH (Upstream, Global Services,Holding) structure alone, which employs a quarter of the group's workforce inFrance, executives even represent almost 70% of employees.As lower skilled jobs are often outsourced, manual workers are simply absent fromthe workforce!Reduced to this elementary sociological reality, one understands that theemployees of the striking refineries were not, nor could they feel, representedby these "trade unions", mostly elected by managers, ready to sign any agreementwith their exploiter.... always in the name of social dialogue.In the neo-liberal language, social dialogue is synonymous with diktat, but itfigures better in the media and on social networks. The notion of social dialogueis in itself a fraud, as it does not mean what it suggests: a discussion betweentwo equal parties whose interests may converge. It is even its antithesis: morethan dialogue, it is most often a communication exercise in which the dominant,the state or the boss, indicates to the dominated his objectives, his roadmap andthe red line he will not cross under no circumstances.In this sense, social dialogue is, pardon the expression, a dialogue of the deaf.This very notion of a community of interests between employees and employers issimply a scam.The recent case of the strike movement in the refineries of the TotalEnergiesgroup is the most perfect example of this.In 2021, the group made a record profit of €14 billion and distributed almost€6.8 billion to its shareholders (as well as a share buyback of almost €2billion). In the same year, the group fired 4,167 of its "collaborators",including 700 in France. These exploits led Patrick Pouyanné, CEO of the group,to see his salary increase by 52% to 5.9 million euros a year (which is 300 timesthe minimum wage).Thus the TotalEnergies group, which continues to make profits even in 2022,preferred to lose millions of euros in a showdown with striking employees ratherthan give up a few percentage points of its record profits and engage in new hires.An economically irrational choice but dictated by the desire to maintain a systembased on exploitation and domination at all costs.Social dialogue or dialogue of the deaf?Élisabeth Borne herself, then Minister of Transport, already claimed in 2018, ina letter addressed to the trade unions for a meeting where all that remained wasto listen and agree to the government's projects: "Social dialogue is the onlypossible way forward in the interest of the public service".What interest are you talking about?The interests of one are not compatible with the interests of the other.The history of social struggles for the conquest of rights is a history ofconflict because it opposes two classes with antagonistic interests, thisobservation is not new. It was not discussions around a table that made itpossible to obtain the compulsory weekly rest, the eight-hour working day, paidholidays, wage increases, etc.It was the conflicts, the strikes, the blockage of the economy.Whenever the employers agreed to reduce by a little the profits they derive fromthe exploitation of the labor force of the majority, they were coerced andcoerced. And every time he assured that he was going to ruin.So it was in 1840 when the first bill limiting child labor was introduced, whichaccording to its detractors amounted to "sacrificing industry".The role of the state in these moments is often seen as positive. Indeed, it isthrough his intervention that the limitations on the power of the capitalistswere enacted into law. The welfare state is still praised today by Macronie (theset of interest groups of the bourgeoisie linked to Macron, ndt).But as for the welfare state that practically everyone on the left invokes, isthis the horizon towards which we must go or is it rather an obstacle to theemancipation of all?In his book "The Battle of Social Security", the economist Nicolas Da Silvadeconstructs a myth firmly anchored in our unconscious, that of the birth ofsocial security, the result of an agreement between Gaullists and Communistswithin the National Council of Resistance.Nothing is less true.Its history is rooted in workers' struggles, in this way of making solidaritythat the author calls "the Social", heir to the Revolution of 1789 and the ParisCommune.The Social, conceived and built from below, is opposed to the welfare State,vertical and subject to the interests of the State and Capital.For Nicolas Da Silva, the welfare state and the welfare state are opposed just asrepresentative government and true democracy are opposed. Rediscovering thespirit of the Social is rediscovering the way to truly supportive socialprotection, self-organized and free from the interests of capitalists.The social against the welfare stateThe welfare state is therefore not a desirable horizon, but rather an impedimentto the full realization of the emancipation of the working classes.Let us refuse to submit, his interests are not ours.In the same way we refuse social dialogue, our interests are not those of thebourgeoisie, we will only get what we impose by force.Participating in the collective construction of the general strike is today theonly way to achieve the Social.* Article appeared in Alternative Libertaire number 333 of December 2022,available in French on the website:https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Statu-quo-Dialogue-social-contre-lutte-des-classeshttps://www.veliber.org/archivio/IlCantiere/A3/cant_2023_14/files/cant_2023_14.pdf_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten