The defeat that arose with the referendum of 8/9 June is not only
evident but also complete. In fact, it goes beyond the purely trade
union level to take on an evidently political significance, precisely
because it is configured as a victory of the class enemy in its
multifaceted economic, social, political and institutional
configurations. It is a defeat destined to cause serious consequences
both in terms of a recrudescence of the employers' and government's
offensive against the living conditions of the subaltern classes and
against civil rights and freedom, and in terms of trade union
organization and its strategic role, in one of the most complex and
dramatic phases experienced since the Second World War.
It has become clear that if trade union action shifts to the political,
party and institutional terrain, leaving aside the uncompromising
defense of the living conditions of the subaltern classes, if trade
union action is replaced by the intertwining with parliamentarism as
happened during the referendum campaign, defeat is certain.
By choosing the instrument of the referendum, Landini and the CGIL
leadership group had first of all the heavy responsibility of having
left the fate of millions of workers in the hands of the class enemy and
of having let the success of the general strike in November deflate
in recent months without building passages of struggle that would
mobilize workers at least until the referendum.
The CGIL, which had promoted four of the five referendums, therefore
emerges weakened by the entire referendum affair that has been
intertwined with the maneuvers of the "broad field", that is, with those
parties that in previous center-left governments distinguished
themselves by adopting policies that have unloaded the costs of the
crisis entirely on our class. Such an alliance has evidently influenced
the will and the ability of the CGIL to face the unprecedented attack
of the bourgeoisie on the vital minimums of workers, so articulating a
significant opposition to the government and the employers will be even
more difficult from now on.
It seems that the defeat of the 1984 referendum on the sliding scale,
promoted by the PCI following the disastrous conclusion of the FIAT
dispute in 1980, did not sediment any serious reflection. The employers
and their government, that of the socialist Craxi, emerged victorious,
marking a point of no return in the affirmation of neoliberal and
anti-worker policies.
Further confirmation of the vacuity of the referendum strategy was the
2003 referendum on the extension of Article 18 of the Workers' Statute,
proposed by Rifondazione Comunista with the then secretary Fausto
Bertinotti, which also saw a disastrous defeat reaching only 25% of the
votes. On that occasion the center-right government, led by Silvio
Berlusconi on behalf of Confindustria, after an initial contrary
position supported the reasons for abstention. Abstention also supported
by the moderates of the center-left (Francesco Rutelli's Margherita,
with a role similar to that of Renzi and Calenda at present) and, much
more seriously, with only a few internal defections, by the Democrats of
the Left, then led by Piero Fassino assisted by Sergio Cofferati
himself, who had recently left the leadership of the CGIL itself.
In the face of such precedents, the criticism aimed at stigmatizing the
indication of abstention by the government forces as a "betrayal of the
constitutional principles that establish voting as a civic duty", moved
both by the leadership of the CGIL and by the Democratic Party, appears
vacuous and completely inadequate.
This further defeat will certainly favor the more concertative sectors
that, still well present in the CGIL, look with extreme interest at the
neo-corporatist turn of the CISL and the more moderate components of the
Democratic Party, which objectively emerge strengthened by the
referendum affair.
We are not interested in dwelling on the analyses of the various
boycotts orchestrated by economic, governmental and political power, nor
in the meanders of that part of the center-left that now claims 30% of
the votes to minimize the defeat. We believe that this is the
consequence of a real institutional drift of the union that has
consciously placed itself as an alternative to the social and class
conflict by means of the referendum shortcut.
After all, once again, history expresses those who interpret it. Thus
the neo-corporatist leadership group of the CISL has also shifted its
action to the institutional level, promoting a collection of signatures
for a popular bill for "participation in work" from which, on May 14,
with the full support of the entire government majority, the new law
Provisions for the participation of workers in the management, capital
and profits of companies emerged. In the face of this, the CGIL
leadership group, flaunting a somewhat improvised activism (in apparent
contrast only with its historic concertative attitude and subordination
to the capitalist framework), has committed itself to the referendum
choice, weakening the social conflict and thus maturing a burning
defeat. Despite the fact that even within the CGIL the referendum choice
has been considered by many to be inadequate, improbable and in any case
a substitute for social conflict and despite the fact that these
critical assessments have also found confirmation in numerous other
political organizations and grassroots trade unionism, the opposition to
the institutional drift has not taken off, it has remained largely a
minority and the social conflict has not generalized to broader
contexts. And now, after the defeat, it will be much more difficult to
propose it again and carry it forward in a unitary context. Furthermore,
the defeat is not only of the CGIL leadership group, but also and above
all of its entire militant fabric that generously spent itself in the
referendum choice. These considerations point not so much to the search
for responsibilities, which certainly lie within the leadership of
confederal unionism-responsibilities that must be identified objectively
and historically-but above all to the real capacity of the entire class
opposition to have an impact, which has not been and still is not
capable of generalizing social conflict, overcoming self-referential
logics to effectively counter the concertative, institutional,
bureaucratic, and neo-corporatist tendencies of confederal unionism.
As workers and vanguards, beyond any paternalistic approach, we have the
duty to question ourselves first and foremost about the subjective
condition of the masses and the fact, confirmed by the ballot boxes, of
a dispersed, disillusioned working class, ensnared by bourgeois models,
largely indifferent and barely aware of its own situation of
exploitation, unwilling to engage in conflict even in the face of a
virulent and pervasive bourgeois offensive that is launching a thorough
attack on its living conditions.
What has been and is still lacking is a militant network rooted in
productive realities and mass movements, capable of expressing and
building unified demands in defense of the interests of the subaltern
classes and the weakest and least protected social sectors. This
construction must be pursued not haphazardly, but with a genuine
strategic awareness capable of safeguarding the unity and autonomy of
the entire class movement, even and especially in the most difficult
moments, when defeat asserts itself, as is happening in this specific
phase. This is an increasingly necessary task, starting from the
awareness derived from the defeats suffered by our class, which have now
overshadowed its significant victories, thus laying the foundations for
the current crisis of social conflict, which is increasingly turning in
favor of capital. This is necessary, urgent, and can no longer be postponed.
Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA
http://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/
_________________________________________
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
evident but also complete. In fact, it goes beyond the purely trade
union level to take on an evidently political significance, precisely
because it is configured as a victory of the class enemy in its
multifaceted economic, social, political and institutional
configurations. It is a defeat destined to cause serious consequences
both in terms of a recrudescence of the employers' and government's
offensive against the living conditions of the subaltern classes and
against civil rights and freedom, and in terms of trade union
organization and its strategic role, in one of the most complex and
dramatic phases experienced since the Second World War.
It has become clear that if trade union action shifts to the political,
party and institutional terrain, leaving aside the uncompromising
defense of the living conditions of the subaltern classes, if trade
union action is replaced by the intertwining with parliamentarism as
happened during the referendum campaign, defeat is certain.
By choosing the instrument of the referendum, Landini and the CGIL
leadership group had first of all the heavy responsibility of having
left the fate of millions of workers in the hands of the class enemy and
of having let the success of the general strike in November deflate
in recent months without building passages of struggle that would
mobilize workers at least until the referendum.
The CGIL, which had promoted four of the five referendums, therefore
emerges weakened by the entire referendum affair that has been
intertwined with the maneuvers of the "broad field", that is, with those
parties that in previous center-left governments distinguished
themselves by adopting policies that have unloaded the costs of the
crisis entirely on our class. Such an alliance has evidently influenced
the will and the ability of the CGIL to face the unprecedented attack
of the bourgeoisie on the vital minimums of workers, so articulating a
significant opposition to the government and the employers will be even
more difficult from now on.
It seems that the defeat of the 1984 referendum on the sliding scale,
promoted by the PCI following the disastrous conclusion of the FIAT
dispute in 1980, did not sediment any serious reflection. The employers
and their government, that of the socialist Craxi, emerged victorious,
marking a point of no return in the affirmation of neoliberal and
anti-worker policies.
Further confirmation of the vacuity of the referendum strategy was the
2003 referendum on the extension of Article 18 of the Workers' Statute,
proposed by Rifondazione Comunista with the then secretary Fausto
Bertinotti, which also saw a disastrous defeat reaching only 25% of the
votes. On that occasion the center-right government, led by Silvio
Berlusconi on behalf of Confindustria, after an initial contrary
position supported the reasons for abstention. Abstention also supported
by the moderates of the center-left (Francesco Rutelli's Margherita,
with a role similar to that of Renzi and Calenda at present) and, much
more seriously, with only a few internal defections, by the Democrats of
the Left, then led by Piero Fassino assisted by Sergio Cofferati
himself, who had recently left the leadership of the CGIL itself.
In the face of such precedents, the criticism aimed at stigmatizing the
indication of abstention by the government forces as a "betrayal of the
constitutional principles that establish voting as a civic duty", moved
both by the leadership of the CGIL and by the Democratic Party, appears
vacuous and completely inadequate.
This further defeat will certainly favor the more concertative sectors
that, still well present in the CGIL, look with extreme interest at the
neo-corporatist turn of the CISL and the more moderate components of the
Democratic Party, which objectively emerge strengthened by the
referendum affair.
We are not interested in dwelling on the analyses of the various
boycotts orchestrated by economic, governmental and political power, nor
in the meanders of that part of the center-left that now claims 30% of
the votes to minimize the defeat. We believe that this is the
consequence of a real institutional drift of the union that has
consciously placed itself as an alternative to the social and class
conflict by means of the referendum shortcut.
After all, once again, history expresses those who interpret it. Thus
the neo-corporatist leadership group of the CISL has also shifted its
action to the institutional level, promoting a collection of signatures
for a popular bill for "participation in work" from which, on May 14,
with the full support of the entire government majority, the new law
Provisions for the participation of workers in the management, capital
and profits of companies emerged. In the face of this, the CGIL
leadership group, flaunting a somewhat improvised activism (in apparent
contrast only with its historic concertative attitude and subordination
to the capitalist framework), has committed itself to the referendum
choice, weakening the social conflict and thus maturing a burning
defeat. Despite the fact that even within the CGIL the referendum choice
has been considered by many to be inadequate, improbable and in any case
a substitute for social conflict and despite the fact that these
critical assessments have also found confirmation in numerous other
political organizations and grassroots trade unionism, the opposition to
the institutional drift has not taken off, it has remained largely a
minority and the social conflict has not generalized to broader
contexts. And now, after the defeat, it will be much more difficult to
propose it again and carry it forward in a unitary context. Furthermore,
the defeat is not only of the CGIL leadership group, but also and above
all of its entire militant fabric that generously spent itself in the
referendum choice. These considerations point not so much to the search
for responsibilities, which certainly lie within the leadership of
confederal unionism-responsibilities that must be identified objectively
and historically-but above all to the real capacity of the entire class
opposition to have an impact, which has not been and still is not
capable of generalizing social conflict, overcoming self-referential
logics to effectively counter the concertative, institutional,
bureaucratic, and neo-corporatist tendencies of confederal unionism.
As workers and vanguards, beyond any paternalistic approach, we have the
duty to question ourselves first and foremost about the subjective
condition of the masses and the fact, confirmed by the ballot boxes, of
a dispersed, disillusioned working class, ensnared by bourgeois models,
largely indifferent and barely aware of its own situation of
exploitation, unwilling to engage in conflict even in the face of a
virulent and pervasive bourgeois offensive that is launching a thorough
attack on its living conditions.
What has been and is still lacking is a militant network rooted in
productive realities and mass movements, capable of expressing and
building unified demands in defense of the interests of the subaltern
classes and the weakest and least protected social sectors. This
construction must be pursued not haphazardly, but with a genuine
strategic awareness capable of safeguarding the unity and autonomy of
the entire class movement, even and especially in the most difficult
moments, when defeat asserts itself, as is happening in this specific
phase. This is an increasingly necessary task, starting from the
awareness derived from the defeats suffered by our class, which have now
overshadowed its significant victories, thus laying the foundations for
the current crisis of social conflict, which is increasingly turning in
favor of capital. This is necessary, urgent, and can no longer be postponed.
Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA
http://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/
_________________________________________
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