CGIL and UIL have collected the necessary signatures for five
referendums, and the government has set the dates of June 8 and 9 forthe votes. ---- If the "yes" vote wins, some unfair rules regarding
dismissals and precarious work will be abolished, responsibility for the
application of safety regulations will extend to the client company, in
the case of contracts, and foreign citizens will be able to apply for
Italian citizenship after 5 years and not after 10. ---- If the "yes"
vote wins. And this is the most dangerous aspect of the issue. ---- Karl
Marx wrote the chapter on the working day in "Capital" to demonstrate
the need for the working class to organize itself into a political party
and, through its representatives, fight in Parliament to impose laws
favorable to it. Despite this ideological approach, in the sixth
paragraph of that chapter he is forced to state that "these detailed
provisions, which regulate with such military uniformity, at the sound
of the bell, periods, limits, pauses in work, were not at all products
of parliamentary quibbles: they had developed little by little from the
situation, as natural laws of the modern mode of production. Their
formulation, their official recognition, their proclamation by the
State, were the result of long class struggles".
Now, it is not possible to avoid the question: if the workers' movement
had the strength to impose these rights, forcing the representative
assemblies to ratify them with laws, it would not need the referendum.
Conversely, if the workers' movement does not have the strength to
impose its rights with the force of the class struggle, how is it
possible that these rights are recognized in an electoral consultation
where, in addition to capitalists and workers, there are shopkeepers and
priests, soldiers and speculators?
It will be said, "but if the "no" vote wins, we will be able to use the
organization created around the referendums to fight the capitalists."
Of course, except that if the "no" vote wins, the workers' movement
would not only find itself fighting against the interests of the
capitalists, but, as the ineffable prime minister would say, against the
"will of the nation."
And if the "yes" vote wins, we will still have to fight: the older ones
remember the struggles, not always victorious (and not always supported
by the union trinity) for the reinstatement of those fired, despite
Article 18 and court rulings. The same argument can be made regarding
the rules on precarious work. After all, it is enough to think of the
events of the referendum on public water, a few years ago, to realize
the importance that the institutions give to the will of the people,
when it goes against the interests of the privileged. And the referendum
on nuclear power? The referendum on nuclear power was preceded by months
of blockades and occupations, with a movement that was becoming
increasingly mass. The referendum was a ploy by the government of the
time to avoid openly surrendering in front of the square, but in reality
it was only a surrender of the government. Faced with the threatening
popular mobilization, the government gives in or represses; that time it
could not repress such a strong movement and gave in.
The referendum on citizenship is basically a referendum on the length of
the rope that holds the carrot. The right and the left share the
paternalistic idea that the "noble savage" must prove himself worthy of
receiving Italian citizenship, only that some think that ten years are
necessary, others think that five are enough. The solution to a
bureaucratic management that makes residence in Italy illegal based on
quibbles would be the pure and simple elimination of residence visas for
all people on the move, and the equating of every human being to a
"citizen", but this is a measure too simple and revolutionary even for
left-wing parliamentarians.
Why then did CGIL and UIL engage in such an uncertain battle with an
unpromising outcome? The main reason is that even the concertative
unions see abstentionism as their main enemy.
The audience of abstention is mainly composed of the exploited classes
and the popular classes, and abstention is the first party in these same
social sectors. This is a problem for the left and for the state unions,
because disaffection with voting takes away legitimacy from the
institutions. Let us remember that CGIL, CISL and UIL do not draw
legitimacy, like the pre-fascist unions, from the free association of
workers' leagues, but from the role of liquidators and continuators of
the fascist unions, assigned by the government of the time. Since 1943,
the union bureaucracy has strengthened its relationship with the state
apparatus, in the fields of social security and taxation; a loss of
legitimacy of this apparatus would have repercussions on that bureaucracy.
What matters in the referendum is not the victory of the "yes" or "no",
but being able to involve the most active minorities in the electoral
process, in order to retain them in view of the next elections. In this
sense, for the promoters of the referendum, participation is a decisive
element. Not so much for reaching the quorum, but for the formation of a
new generation of electoral activists. This move can give the union
bureaucracy cards to play in the confrontation with the reference
electoral lists.
The referendum issue cannot be analyzed without taking into account the
role of the union bureaucracy, which is the true protagonist and the
only beneficiary, in any case, being able to throw into the negotiations
on the composition of the future broad field the weight of the activists
recruited for the referendum campaign. In this sense, the law on the
minimum wage is an important moment of transition from support for the
referendum to support for the lists that include the law in their program.
The union bureaucracy has the interest of perpetuating itself as a class
and obviously expanding the privileges it enjoys. The self-organization
of the labor movement is the main enemy of the bureaucracy, because it
denies its role of mediation.
Participation in referendums, participation in initiatives in favor of
referendums are therefore traps, both for radical minorities and for the
class as a whole.
Tiziano Antonelli
https://umanitanova.org/la-trappola-del-referendum-lastuta-mossa-della-burocrazia-sindacale/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten