The amendment that would have required public transport workers to give
one week's written notice, with no right to withdraw, of theirparticipation in strikes-an amendment that was aborted before it even
came to light-has sparked a chaotic array of reactions, debates, and
controversies. These exchanges often serve the now-established and
tiresome game of one-upmanship rather than an objective analysis of the
proposal and the consequences of yet another attack on the freedom of
expression and dissent, which is increasingly being stifled and tamed.
Controlling all forms of real opposition and effective protest has
always been a goal of every authority. Indeed, authority fears the
streets and popular participation, because the desire to cease being
mere followers or ultras can lead individuals and groups to become
protagonists of public affairs, making their voices heard and voicing
their opposition to those in power who consider it their exclusive
prerogative. The means adopted to maintain the established order and the
status quo, functional to the preservation of domination, have
historically always been the same: legislative, physical, and
ideological repression, and the regimentation of forms of protest deemed
legitimate, which are codified and permitted only in the ways and times
established by the authorities. Further elements of the strategy of
weakening the destabilizing power of dissent include the attempt to
fragment the protest front, achieved by creating specious conflicts
within it. The authorities set themselves up as the sole defender of
popular interests, identifying internal and external enemies as the true
cause of the deterioration of the living conditions of the masses: a mix
of populism, paternalism, and propaganda that very often leads the
exploited themselves to sacrifice themselves as the first and most
ardent supporters of those who can maintain their privileges and their
superior status precisely thanks to the oppression perpetrated upon them.
This incident represents yet another attack by this government on the
right to strike, repeatedly made manifest by exploiting loopholes in
already restrictive legislation and resorting to indiscriminate and
unmotivated injunctions. More generally, this constitutes a further
attempt to reduce and suppress any unwelcome form of public dissent, as
the entry into force of the now infamous security decree clearly
demonstrates. Let's also ignore what should be considered stand-up
comedy remarks about strikes called on Fridays and Mondays to extend the
weekends. These jokes, however, have a certain impact on the public and
contribute to discrediting and obscuring the real reasons for the
demonstrations. They also ignore the significant financial sacrifice
that each abstention from work entails for the strikers. These remarks,
incidentally, come from people whose hours and salaries are certainly
not even remotely comparable to those of the vast majority of workers.
The main reason given for arguing that strikes are inappropriate in
general, and in public sectors in particular, is the harm they cause to
citizens, who are unable to access the services that should always be
guaranteed in a civil society, particularly transportation, healthcare,
and education. Curiously, these are precisely the sectors massively
penalized and devastated by government policies that, in addition to
diverting economic resources to areas that have little or nothing to do
with the general interest, such as military spending and rearmament, are
constantly and scientifically neglected and rendered increasingly
inefficient to make way for incessant privatization. Poor public
transportation services, especially for commuters, interminable waiting
lists in healthcare, collapsing public education, uncontrolled
procurement and subcontracting, private state-approved schools and
universities, and supplementary healthcare are inextricably linked, two
sides of the same coin designed to make our society increasingly
stratified and discriminatory based on class and economic means.
The apparent institutional opposition, be it political or trade union,
participates fully in these dynamics, taking on increasingly polemical
or conciliatory tones as the opportunity arises. This demonstrates the
full instrumental nature of its position, which often boils down, aside
from ineffective individual exceptions, to either a demand for greater
participation in the division of the spoils or the support of power
groups and lobbies other than those of the adversary in question. This
is without ever questioning the assumptions of the prevailing model, but
is content to suggest small and marginal changes that serve its own
interests. This attitude of feigned opposition to the system and
substantial complicity with it manifests itself, beyond the slogans and
catchphrases shouted to cajole the public and gain easy consensus, in
the decisions made from time to time, such as endorsing warmongering and
neocolonial exploitation policies internationally and renouncing basic
demands such as effective economic adjustment and reduced working hours
while maintaining equal pay in contract renewals. The use of street
protests is promoted and tolerated only if they occur under the
direction and for the desired purposes of "institutional opponents,"
who, however, rush to align themselves with those they challenge
whenever the demands transgress the rigid boundaries delineated or take
uncodified forms that are instantly branded as illegal and violent, and
from which they are immediately distanced. Once again, the hypocrisy of
an attitude that condemns, with the now overused formula of "without ifs
and buts," every alleged illegal action by protesters is exposed, with
no regard for the brutal violence of a system that "legally" forces
people to die on the job in the name of profit, to choose between
employment, health, or environmental protection, to accept inadequate
wages with the threat of no wage at all, and generally to endure
conditions of economic, social, and human exploitation, considering it
completely normal, without possible alternatives, immutable, and
unquestionable. Breaking a window or setting fire to a dumpster is
branded a terrorist, criminal, and intolerable act, while
simultaneously, and without any embarrassment, the massive export of
weapons and their use against defenseless civilians is calmly and
condescendingly accepted. Consistency these days is clearly an
unacceptable luxury, just as the goal advocated by Benni's Saltatempo
has become unattainable for many: "We must be true to the words we say,
perhaps not word for word, but we understand each other."
Much of the confusing debate and apparent controversy surrounding the
proposed amendment has revolved around the concept of the violation of a
right, particularly an acquired right. On the one hand, this is
considered a sort of privilege, granted and always revocable or
modifiable at will; on the other, it is considered an established,
indisputable, unalterable, and eternal fact; both positions share an
ahistorical and anti-political conception of law, its origins, and its
value. Those in power never grant a right, which in effect limits their
prerogatives, whether spontaneously or out of the goodness of their
heart. A right is always the result of a struggle between two opposing
factions, one seeking to maintain a privilege and the other seeking more
favorable conditions. It arises from the balance of power between groups
fighting for different and opposing goals.
When a right is formally "granted," it is because, in fact, it has
already become such. Its transition from "de facto" status to legal norm
is the recognition of the outcome of a conflict in which a victor forced
the other side to accept as lawful what was previously considered
unlawful. The right thus won will remain "immutable" only to the extent
that the balance of power that generated it is preserved and does not
permit its revocation. It is quite clear that from this perspective, a
right is not important in itself, but rather as the product of a
struggle, often bloody and brutal, and of the balance of power that has
established its value. These struggles and balances of power must be
continually reaffirmed if we are not to lose what has been achieved.
Every attack on an "acquired" right is an attempt by the ruling class to
raise its head and reclaim spaces that have been taken away by the will,
intransigence, determination, and reasoning of their opponents. It is
equally clear that only a daily struggle that does not rest on the
laurels of what has already been achieved, but reaffirms at every
opportunity the strength and justice of the demands of emancipation and
freedom, can be an effective antidote to the abuses of power. Every
single right must be won, reaffirmed, and exercised with determination
and without fear, to ensure that it is not first considered a
concession, then a privilege, and finally denied, because, it is worth
remembering, each person has the power that others allow them to take.
Alessandro Fini
https://umanitanova.org/proteste-sotto-attacco-diritto-di-sciopero-e-sciopero-del-diritto/
_________________________________________
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