(en) Ireland, WSM, Anti-Water Charges Demonstration

The next mass anti-water charges protest is on January 31st, at 2pm, in Dublin city 
centre. The Facebook event page can be found here. ---- Residents of North Dublin will 
meet at Connolly Station, residents of South Dublin will meet at Heuston Station, and all 
will march down both sides of the quays. Those travelling from outside Dublin can meet 
wherever (Connolly or Heuston) is closest to them. Many local anti-water charges groups 
will be marching in together. Also, many local groups outside Dublin which cannot make it 
will be demonstrating locally. ---- The government are hoping that with the Water Services 
Bill passed we will shut up and go away. To their dismay, direct actions against water 
metering have continued to blaze across Ireland, often met by an enormous Garda presence. 
Clearly they are not so confident then.

Irish Water continues to churn out their propaganda, imploring people to register to their 
bloated privatisation vehicle. The bills are due on April 1st (go figure) and they are as 
aware as we are that it is essential to Irish Water that we pay our water bills like 
obedient little Irish residents.

However, a large proportion of people have resolved to boycott these unfair charges, and a 
significant amount are undecided. This is a critical period in the fight to abolish the 
water charges. We must carry our momentum and inspire each other to drive Irish Water back.

We have come too far too lose. Too much is at stake. A victory would not only mean 
abolishing the regressive water charges and stymying privatisation, but also the triumph 
of democracy, of civil disobedience by we people supposedly not fit to govern, over those 
who live only for money and power. We're in this to win. If you are too, be there on 
January 31st at 2pm.

Event date and time:
Sat, 2015-01-31 14:00 - 16:00

http://www.wsm.ie/c/anti-water-charges-demonstration

US, WSM, Ideas & Action: Why Consensus Decision-making Won?t Work for Grassroots Unionism By Tom Wetzel

Syndicalists have always supported a form of direct democracy based on majority rule. Like 
most American unions, the Industrial Workers of the World officially endorses Robert?s 
Rules of Order ? although some of their smaller branches use a stripped down version 
called Rusty?s Rules.1 The point to taking a vote is that it enables an organized group to 
come to a decision that expresses the collective will, even when there is some 
disagreement. ---- This doesn?t mean that all decisions are made by voting. In grassroots 
organizations based on majority decision-making, it often happens that most decisions are 
made without taking any vote ? especially in smaller meetings. That?s because people are 
often able to come to agreement just by discussing the issue or proposal.

As a mass organization, a union will inevitably tend to have a diversity of viewpoints. On 
the other hand, the ability to reach agreement is helped by the shared circumstances. The 
members of a base union ? such as a grassroots union in a particular workplace ? are 
working class people who share common subordination to a particular employer, or they work 
in the same industry. Although different jobs or departments may have special problems, 
and some groups may experience particular forms of discrimination, they share the general 
conditions of that workplace. Many will have personal connections with other members from 
working together. This makes it easier for members to take up the form of ?we? 
consciousness involved in making collective decisions in a union.

Nowadays many radical activists object to making decisions by majority vote and advocate 
?consensus decision-making? as an alternative. Consensus decision-making among activist 
groups in the USA is relatively recent. This practice originated with the anti-nuke 
movement and women?s consciousness raising groups between the ?60s and ?80s. The Quakers 
were the original source or influence for consensus decision-making in that era. Quaker 
groups like Movement for a New Society and the American Friends Service Committee (the 
social service arm of the Quaker religious groups) were important advocates for consensus 
back then. Later on this practice was continued by anti-war groups like Direct Action to 
Stop the War during the opposition to the Iraq war in 2003. The most important recent 
experiment with consensus was with Occupy Wall Street and the various Occupy assemblies in 
American cities.

During this period, ?these [consensus] methods became identified with anarchism,? David 
Graeber writes, ?because anarchists recognized them to be forms that could be employed in 
a free society, in which no one could be physically coerced to go along with a decision 
they found profoundly objectionable.?((David Graeber, The Democracy Project: A History, A 
Crisis, A Movement, (Random House: New York, 2013), 195.)) Actually, this is a very 
egoistic form of anarchism, as I?ll show in a moment.

Consensus and grassroots majority vote democracy share certain common features, such as 
open discussion, trying to reach agreement through talking things out, trying to persuade 
each other. Although meetings of a union or other working class organization don?t have 
the problem of the huge clash of interests between people of different classes, it?s very 
likely that people will have disagreements on important issues.

Consensus is based on the idea of talking things out until agreement is reached. In the 
form of consensus practiced in the ?70s and ?80s, no agreement could be reached unless 
people were unanimous. This tended to lead to very protracted meetings. Six hour meetings 
were not unusual. Occupy Wall Street adopted a 90 percent rule, but this still allows a 
concerted minority to force concessions to their viewpoint. This is a form of minority rule.

I think it is possible for consensus to work fine in some settings, such as small groups 
of people with similar ideas. Often voting is used as a method in bureaucratic 
organizations such as the U.S. Congress or meetings of unions dominated by officials and 
paid staff. On the other hand, decision-making may be a lot less alienating in a small 
circle of like-minded acquaintances who simply talk things out to reach agreement. But 
this contrast is misleading because a working class social movement must be able to do 
effective decision-making in mass settings where consensus isn?t workable.

Consensus originally derives from the way Quaker religious meetings are conducted. The 
Quaker method of prayer is a process of ?waiting upon the Lord? to reveal ?the Light? 
within. George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends (Quakers), wrote: ?In the Light wait 
where the Unity is, where the peace is, where the Oneness with the Father and Son is, 
where there is no Rent nor Division.?((Quoted in Howard Ryan, ?Blocking Progress: 
Consensus Decision Making in the Anti-Nuclear Movement? 
(http://www.docspopuli.org/pdfs/consensus.pdf).)) Quakers reject voting because it 
presupposes ?division.? Quaker groups are based on a high level of unity. This makes it 
easier to reach a consensus. When people make a statement in a meeting, often there are 
silences. There is not a hurry to make a decision.

Quaker religious societies are an example of what John McDermott calls an expressive 
organization. As McDermott put it:

Unity of action is not required?The only unity required ahead of time for expressive 
organizations is a general will to share, to discuss, and to enter into the company of 
others for mutual growth, support, and enjoyment.((John McDermott, The Crisis in the 
Working Class & Some Arguments For a New Labor Movement (South End Press: Boston, 1980), 
190.))

An expressive organization?s purpose is ?to express certain things which already exist 
among its members.? With an expressive organization much of the purpose is in the meeting 
itself ? as with the singing and praying in a church service. Religious groups are not the 
only kind of expressive organization.

As McDermott points out, the capitalist elite also have their own ?expressive? 
organizations, such as seminars, conferences, magazines, and so on. In the past the 
radical left has organized grassroots institutions that played an expressive role in 
working class communities. An example would be the Hall of the Masses in Detroit after 
World War 1. This was not a union or instrumental organization. It was a place where 
workers who were being radicalized could come to hear talks and debates. Issues of 
importance to the working class were analyzed, and cultural events were held.

During the height of Occupy in 2011, people describing their experiences often spoke about 
how personally helpful it was to find others experiencing similar circumstances, such as 
unemployment, foreclosure, massive student debt, and so on. The assemblies could provide a 
sympathetic hearing to those talking about their life. And hearing others validated their 
own dissent from the system. Looking at it this way, we can say that Occupy assemblies 
also had an expressive character. Marina Sitrin?s report on a series of interviews with 
Occupy veterans also suggests this expressive character: ?We would often interject how 
important the question of dignity is?.People around the US often no longer feel it is 
their fault that they are loosing their homes or jobs ? and instead feel a new sense of 
power ? feeling they are the 
99%.?((https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/sustainability-organization-and-anti-capitalism-talkin-occupy-around-the-us/))

McDermott distinguishes expressive organizations from instrumental organizations ? 
organizations we form to be a vehicle for accomplishing our aims. Unions and other 
organizations of struggle (such as tenant or environmental justice organizations) are 
instrumental organizations.

Although consensus is workable in some situations, I think consensus is not a viable 
decision-making method for unions or working class-based mass organizations of struggle.

Working class people in the USA tend to work long hours. Since the ?70s the workweek has 
gotten longer, and many people work multiple jobs. The average workweek in the USA is now 
among the longest in the world. People also have children and relationships, and must 
somehow fit all these things into their lives.

This means that a type of organization that tends to have very protracted meetings is not 
very useful or welcoming to working people. Consensus is biased in favor of people who 
work shorter hours or have more flexible schedules, such as students.

An organization that thwarts the will of the majority and gets mired in long meetings is 
not going to be an effective vehicle for working class people.

An advantage of majority vote direct democracy is its flexibility. If there are a number 
of less important issues on the agenda, the meeting can move through these fairly quickly 
and devote more time for discussion of the more important issues. Consensus lacks this 
flexibility. Also, the requirement of unanimity or a high super-majority makes it harder 
for an organization to change its program or methods based on experience. There will 
almost always be a minority who prefer the original orientation that brought them to that 
organization. They can block a change.

The core of consensus is the ability of any individual to block a decision. David 
Graeber?s version: ?Anyone who feels a proposal violates a fundamental principle shared by 
the group should have the opportunity to veto (block) that proposal.?

What counts as a ?fundamental principle? is itself something that people are likely to 
disagree about. When someone blocks a proposal favored by a large majority, a 
consensus-based group can try to persuade the blocker to ?stand aside? (to abstain) or 
they can make concessions to the blocker.

Even when no one does block, everyone is aware that anyone can. This means that there will 
be tension in a meeting if someone expresses disagreement with a proposal because people 
know that person could block it. If a person does block an important action proposal that 
has majority support, they better be prepared for heavy pressure. This situation actually 
discourages expression of disagreement. Within a grassroots organization that uses 
majority vote, people can express disagreement without blocking the majority from pursuing 
the course of action it favors. This makes dissent less harmful.

Consensus seems to be based on the idea that disagreements can always be overcome through 
persuasion or talking things over. But this is unrealistic. Even when people are committed 
to a common organization or movement, they may have deeply felt disagreements. Critics of 
consensus have observed for years the tendency to paper over disagreements with poor 
decisions. Rudy Perkins described this problem in the Clamshell Alliance in New England in 
the ?70s:

?Majority rule is disliked because among the two, three or many courses of action 
proposed, only one is chosen; the rest are ?defeated.? Consensus theoretically 
accommodates everyone?s ideas. In practice this often led to:

A watered down, least-common-denominator solution, or
The victory of one proposal through intimidation or acquiescence, or
The creation of a vague proposal to placate everyone, while the plan of one side or 
another is actually implemented through committees or office staff.?((Rudy Perkins, 
?Breaking with Libertarian Dogma: Lessons from the Anti-Nuclear Struggle,? Black Rose, 
Fall, 1979, 15.))
Consensus is based on distrust of the majority. That?s why the blocking rule is really the 
heart of consensus. Disagreements in mass organizations or social movements are 
inevitable. This means that there will inevitably be some element of pressure because 
people will be required to accept decisions they are not happy with if they are committed 
to that organization. Advocates of consensus like David Graeber are concerned to prevent 
an individual from being forced to go along with a collective decision they strongly 
disagree with. But they do not see the problem of coercion of the majority by an 
individual or small minority under consensus rules. Consensus is based on the principle of 
the primacy of the individual Ego over the collective will. This is why I say that 
consensus is based on an egoistic principle.

Requirements for unanimity or super-majorities for decisions are not helpful if the aim is 
building social power among working class people.

To gain some power, unions try to mobilize resistance, which can take small forms like 
wearing T-shirts with a message or a stronger form such as a strike. Often a strike comes 
only after a lengthy period of discussion among workers, meetings, growing anger, and 
efforts by a union to build confidence. People may fear losing their job. When workers are 
discussing whether to strike, there will be some who are more timid or more cautious. It 
may take a major effort to convince even a majority to strike. If a decision to strike 
were to require complete unanimity or a high super-majority, this would make it much more 
difficult to get a strike off the ground.

Prior to the 2012 strike by Chicago teachers, the state legislature in Illinois passed a 
law requiring a ?Yes? vote of 75 percent plus one for a teacher strike to be legal. This 
was a 75 percent majority of all teachers, not just those voting. This was done to make it 
difficult for teachers to strike legally.

See http://www.iww.org/oldbranches/US/CA/lagmb/lit/meeting.pdf.

Irelan, WSM, Worker Solidarity 129 - Fighting for abortion rights in Northern Ireland

In the North of Ireland, abortion is prohibited under the Offences Against the Persons Act 
(1861) - with some common law exceptions. If continuation of the pregnancy threatens the 
life of the woman, or would adversely affect her mental and physical health where the 
effects are ?real and serious? or ?long term?, are two such examples. ---- An academic 
survey claims that the majority of gynaecologists in Northern Ireland "do not support the 
current abortion law as it stands". Many also say they would carry out abortions under 
certain conditions. Sexual health charity FPA said this "rubbished" claims by anti-choice 
groups and politicians that "there is no place for abortion in NI". Of 42 gynaecologists 
working in Northern Ireland, 37 took part in the survey giving a response rate of 88%. 
(The survey, 'Attitudes and practice of gynaecologists towards abortion in Northern 
Ireland' (2009), was conducted by Colin Francome, Emeritus Professor in the Sociology of 
Health, at Middlesex University, England)

The recent opening of the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast provides abortions for women up 
to nine weeks via the abortion pill and also provides other sexual health services - at a 
cost of up to ?400 - ?2000 for the consultation and care including the abortion pill. The 
abortion pill, or misoprostol, will terminate a pregnancy up to 12 weeks (a woman needs 12 
pills of misoprostol to end a pregnancy - more info).

Desperation

Due to the lack of adequate abortion provision for women here, 40 women a week leave 
Ireland to obtain abortions in mainland UK. Those who cannot afford to travel and have no 
options fall victim to unscrupulous internet scams which claim to be selling the abortion 
pill, or in desperation go to loan sharks of which there has been a rise since the 
introduction of the austerity measures across the board ? putting these women and their 
families into serious debt.

In the 2009 case to remove Department of Heath guidelines on Terminations for the medical 
profession, Lord Justice Girvan claimed that giving advice as to the availability of 
abortion services elsewhere in the UK was ?arguably unlawful?. The European Court of 
Human Rights decided in a case against Ireland in 1992 that prohibiting women from 
receiving such information was a breach of fundamental rights in the European Convention.

Lord Justice Girvan put forward a proposed amendment in February of this year which would 
restrict even further the allowance of any abortions in the North to be carried out 
legally not under NHS and also restrict the limited legal framework. This was despite the 
Marie Stopes clinic having been more than willing to receive any inspections/assessments 
set by the Dept of Health/Health Minister. Edwin Poots, the current Health Minister, 
commented ?If this is the backwoods, I?m glad we?re in it.? ? showing a complete disregard 
for women?s ability to make their own choices about healthcare and reflective of a wider 
effort to steer the abortion debate away from choice.

Control

A Petition of concern was signed by Sinn Fein, Alliance and the Green Party ?which 
fortunately prevented the amendment being made. However women?s legal right to abortion 
is under constant threat of attack from the right wing, predominantly Christian, male 
dominated Stormont Assembly who not only want to retain the control of women via 
reproductive rights and choices but support the continuance of the unacknowledged labour 
of women, and ensuring in the wider context the production of cheaper labour.

With the introduction of austerity measures we will see not only continuation of lack of 
provision for healthcare for women but a reinforcing of the status quo. The only women 
having access to abortions, even within the common law restrictions of private healthcare 
at great cost, are middle and upper class women showing it is not a moral issue but a 
class issue. Again, the affordability of abortions appears to be the only difference 
between those who can obtain them and those who are forced to go through with an unwanted 
pregnancy.

Solidarity

What is needed is to continue to renew efforts to collectivise power, show solidarity with 
NI and ROI comrades to ensure the fight continues until free safe and legal abortion on 
demand for all women can be provided via the healthcare system in place - presently, the 
NHS. Alliance for Choice Belfast and Derry are very active in keeping the debate open and 
conversation going on the issue of access to abortion and will remain active until there 
is a referendum on abortion - via street protests, marches and continued lobbying efforts 
with the Assembly.

The cross border efforts between the North and the South show a strong support base for 
pro-choice campaigners. The tragic death of Savita Hallapanavar has united people despite 
its graveness to challenge the status quo for the life of women and their healthcare and 
raise questions about how to address the inequalities that exist.

The World Health Organisation information on abortion


WORDS: Maria

Ireland, The New Politics of Sinn Fein by Kevin Bean- From Insurgency to Identity - Review by Sean Matthews - WSM

As someone who moved from Irish republican socialism to anarchism, Kevin Bean offers a
convincing and fascinating insight into the journey and demise of radical republicanism in
Ireland. It demolishes the ?sell-out? narrative promoted by some quarters of disaffected
republicanism by diligently exploring the rapid transformation of the Provisional movement
from a counter-insurgency to an active partner in governing the state it now eagerly
upholds. ---- Bean locates Irish republicanism in a global political context and shows how
its politics are comparable to other ideological projects that have undergone similar
decline and redefinition since the late 1980s. The book considers the tension between the
universal and the particular within republicanism and how this is reflected in specific
aspects of republican politics with a complex dialectic between the British state and
Republicanism.

The focus on the international context is particularly topical at the moment with the Arab
Spring and global occupy movement. It is interesting how the numerous commemorations and
articles invoking the uprisings in Paris, protests in London?s Grosvenor Square, fighting
in Vietnam and radicalisation of the black civil rights movement in the USA have failed to
mention Derry 1968 and the struggle for civil rights in Northern Ireland. Yet when Bean
interviews IRA volunteers and republican activists, the extent to which they were inspired
by other struggles becomes clear: ?From its founding moment, the environment shaping the
movement extended beyond the streets of West Belfast and the villages of East Tyrone to
guerrilla campaigns in Latin America and civil rights activism in the USA?, writes Bean.

A couple of weeks ago, Kevin Bean gave a lecture in the Na Croisbhealai workers
co-operative in Belfast summarising his book. Interestingly, using the releasing of
British state documents he pointed out that the setting up of no-go zones in nationalist
working class areas across the North (that were subsequently dismantled after Bloody
Friday in 1972) were considered more of a threat to the authority and stability of the
British state than the militarised and vanguardist campaign waged by the Provos. Indeed,
this area of struggle and mass campaigns over internment and rent and rates strike remains
largely unexplored.

While republicans drew inspiration from other radical movements, Bean shows that the
movement never really had a clear definition of republican ideology. In very simple terms,
in the late 1960s through to the mid-1980s the politics of the republican struggle were
largely universalist and anti-imperialist in character, and influenced by ?progressive?
struggles in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. However, the author argues
that Provisionalism is of deeply communal post -1968 version of republicanism and that the
burning of Bombay street and outbreak of sectarian clashes formed the judgement of many
republican activists more than the revoking of 1916 and past glories.

Since the late 1980s, in a post-Cold War world that has seen the further decline of the
left, republican politics became prey to the particularist strand that always existed
within the movement especially as it is located in one side of the sectarian divide. The
republican leadership quietly revisited its universalist aspiration for a United Ireland
with a united people, and moved towards embracing the politics of cultural difference and
identity. As Kevin highlights, ?While secularization and challenges to the political,
social and sexual authority of the Church have certainly taken place since the 1960s,
Catholicism remains an important cultural influence and an underpinning element of
communal common sense, even for lapsed Catholics. Despite republicanism?s frequently
bitter battles for hegemony with the Church, the parish and the community of the faithful
were to leave a deep imprint on the community politics of the Provisionals.? Indeed, this
inability to build a revolutionary project transcending the sectarian divide remains a
significant barrier today and can we witnessed during the recent Queen?s visit to the
North in which particularist forms of opposition came to the fore. ( Read more)

Such brutal honesty was, however, nowhere to be seen in the republican movement?s
leadership itself or its opponents in other factions. Instead, they presented the peace
process as a successful outcome of their campaign, rather than analysing it as a logical
conclusion to a long process of de-politicisation and accommodation.

With its rhetoric of ?a new phase of struggle?, ?new site of struggle?, ?transition?,
?opportunity?, ?staging post?, ?national reconciliation? and ?historical momentum?, the
republican leadership, aided by the deliberate ambiguity of the peace process, was able to
present a series of unprecedented departures from republican principles as great steps
forward. There is no shame in defeat, of course; it can be an opportunity to take stock,
learn lessons and search for a new form of politics that can address the continuing
reality of British rule and political and social divisions. Yet there is something
shameful about disguising defeat as ?a new transitional direction? or ?building an Ireland
of equals?

Unfortunately, the current leadership of the Republican movement has compounded its defeat
by its political dishonesty, and its refusal to tell it like it is. With its constant
advocacy of identity politics, pleas for truth and reconciliation and therapeutic
rhetoric, republican leaders retrospectively undermine the essence of republicanism. For
example, IRA volunteers who carried out attacks against ?British crown forces? such as
Loughgall and Gibraltar were once considered as combatants in a war are now cast as
victims that needs to be re-dressed through lobbying institutions of the British state.

A central theme running through Kevin Bean?s assessment is the role of the state
displaying ?soft power? in terms of manufacturing consent in a Gramsci manner via the
enormous ?peace industry? and funding of community groups in the ?resistance community?.
For Kevin this shaping of the social and political terrain by the British state that
provisionalism operated from was a strategic success and had the greatest impact on the
evolution of the movement to a fully-fledged constitutional movement as he explains ?A
growing focus on localism and communal (such as building resident groups against Orange
Order marches) reflected a scaling down of ambitions as the Provisionals? national project
of transformation shifted towards a more limited representational role of petitioning
within the political and social framework of the status-quo. Thus a process that had begun
at this limited level would ultimately end in republican participation in government after
1998.?

For anarchists, the central thesis explored in this this book will resonate with the
historical debate on the left over whether the state can be utilised as an instrument of
working-class emancipation. Indeed, this transformation of Provisionalism, and Kevin
Bean?s analysis to some extent supports the libertarian communist analysis of statism that
far from 'withering away' it will only strengthen and recuperate any radical threat to the
status-quo. Furthermore, authoritarian and hierarchal organisational praxis will be the
gravedigger of any serious revolutionary movement because it removes power from the base.
As Mikhail Bakunin predicted over a century ago, ?This explains how and why men who were
once the reddest democrats, the most vociferous radicals, once in power become the most
moderate conservatives. Such turnabouts are usually, and mistakenly, regarded as a kind of
treason. Their principle cause is the inevitable change of position and perspective.?(1)

While, this book is a must read, an excellent contribution offering a devastating critique
of republicanism as a radical alternative to the status-quo in Ireland, it is equally
important as revolutionaries and anarchists that we learn the lessons of past mistakes.
Although Irish republicanism may have ideologically and intellectually exhausted itself
due to its flexible contradictory nature, it remains a powerful attraction in Ireland
which anarchists only ignore at their own peril as the anarchist movement and the wider
left is yet to replicate the same influence in terms of building a significant social base
and mass mobilisation within the wider working class.

1) p60. We, the Anarchists. A Study of the Iberian Anarchist Federation(FAI) 1927-1937

Bron : a-infos-en@ainfos.ca

(en) Anarkismo.net: Greek Steel Workers Strike - Greece on the verge of revolution? Think again... by Workers Solidarity - WSM

The third world war is coming! --- That's what they say! --- Fuck!! --- This ain't gonna
be a class war either. ---- Undoubtedly, Greece is the country that has suffered the most
during this last and totally unrestrained wave of liberalization and fierce devaluation of
labour which has been sweeping Europe since the start of the financial crisis in 2008. At
the same time there are a multitude of political anti-systemic oppositional forces which
have managed to maintain a living presence in Greek society. ---- What this looks like is
everything from a widespread network of anarchist/autonomous groups of various flavours,
growing in numbers after the 2008 December riots to the network for Inclusive Democracy
across to the Greek Communist Party. The Greek Communist Party are one of the few European
communist parties not seduced by social-democratic Sirens, still adhering to the communist
principles (at least at the rhetorical level) and with a consistent presence in the
Parliament.

One would be tempted to assume that this situation would turn Greece into a hotbed of
revolutionary activity. In fact, there are many, especially among the left-wing
intellectuals from abroad, who seem all too willing to make this assumption, thereby
creating an image of Greece going through a pre-revolutionary stage.

Of course this is untrue, and it makes no difference to the people who suffer whilst
academics dream of revolutions on foreign horizons. What is even more striking though is
that none of the above mentioned groups has gathered much attention during this imaginary
creation of the ?Greek People?s Republic?. Instead, it is SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical
Left) that has been hailed as the possible saviour of Europe, a conglomerate of leftist
groups for which the term Left would apply only by a very loose interpretation of the word
whereas the term Radical only serves as an marketing trick, showing once again the growing
gap between signifiers and significants in this post-modern world of crumbling meanings.

Just before the second round of elections in June, Slavoj Zizek was invited to give a talk
at a SYRIZA meeting and as was expected, he charmed his audience by employing all his
usual rhetorical devices. When asked about the Communist Party of Greece, he replied that
these people are dead but they don?t know it yet. Accusing a pro-Soviet communist party of
exhibiting the stiffness of a dead body might of course sound like preaching to the
converted. However, doing so among a bunch of social democrats who have failed to sense
the stinking odour of the rotting body of Social Democracy sounds like a twisted Monty
Python joke.
Back to basics

A few kilometres away from this SYRIZA meeting, in an industrial suburb of the greater
area of Athens, about 400 steel workers were into the seventh month of their strike. These
are workers who have to work in dangerous conditions such as amongst molten streams of
steel which sometimes might find its way on their bodies. If they are lucky, they might
get away with some burns. If they are not, they simply die. They were running one of the
longest strikes in modern Greek history which mainstream media had carefully chosen not to
cover. Needless to say, Slavoj didn?t bother to pay them a visit.

Before the start of the financial crisis, the Greek Steel Industry was considered to be
one of the largest Greek industries in terms of sales among those that were not in the
stock exchange market. Comprising of two sites, one in Athens and another one in Thessaly,
a region about 300 kilometres to the north of Athens, it had a revenue of more than ?320
million, employing almost 1000 workers. Its actual production had risen during the past 20
years to about 1 million tons of steel per year and it kept rising at the time that the
strike began.

In October 2011 the company announced to the workers that it faced financial difficulties,
i.e. a significant reduction of sales since the start of the crisis and presented them
with a choice. In order to cut down costs, they would either have to accept a five-hour
workday, accompanied by a reduction of their wages by 40% or 180 of them would be fired.
In order to see this dilemma in its true perspective, it is worth noting that the monthly
wage starts at 900 Euro for a newly hired, inexperienced worker and goes up to no more
than 1500 for a worker with decades of experience, working overtime, during weekends and
on night-shifts.

Faced with this dilemma, the 400 workers at the Athens site decided to respond in their
own way and after a general assembly they voted for a strike which nobody believed would
last that long. The atrophied major unions (GSEE for those working in the private sector
and ADEDY for those in the public sector) have made a habit of calling for strikes which
almost always have a more or less symbolic character, lasting no more than 24 or 48 hours.
However, this time the workers assembly showed an unusual determination which of course
forced the company management to take the offensive and soon afterwards the first layoffs
were announced. 38 people were initially fired, a practice that the managers kept
escalating as the workers showed no signs of submission. At the time that this article is
being written, this number has risen to 120 fired workers. Besides these sackings, the
company has made use of a number of other aggressive tactics, from using strike-breakers
to split the workers to arresting the president of their assembly and even bringing the
case to court which ruled the strike as illegal. A host of establishment journalists
didn't miss the chance to follow suit once again, demanding that the government be firm in
enforcing the law and bring things back to normality so that the company's problems could
be discussed in a "rational", "responsible" and "civilized" way. At present, the company
does not seem willing to step back from its initial decision, even though a number of
workers no longer wish to be hired again and the rest of them have suggested to the
company that only 40 of them should be hired immediately and the rest can return to their
jobs gradually.
A walk among the ruins of the unions

The current stalemate situation deserves a closer look since, in certain respects, it
epitomizes all the contradictions that plague the unions, their structure and the means
they employ for their struggle (assuming of course that their goal is to fight for the
interests of the workers, an assumption not at all self-evident). What has allowed the
steel workers to keep their fight going for more than 8 months now is a substantial wave
of solidarity and (material and financial) support that they have received from various
groups and individuals, even from other countries. On the other hand, the company has
managed to survive the strike due to the fact that the workers' representatives at the
Thessaly site chose to answer the dilemma posed by the company's management by accepting
lower wages and reduced work hours. Anyone can guess the outcome of this struggle, in case
there's no further escalation on the part of the workers. The company, considered to be
the spearhead of changes in the Industry which attempt to lower labour costs, will
probably have the final say.

An important difference between the two sites: in Thessaly, the workers society is led by
groups affiliated with the ruling parties in Greece (New Democracy and PASOK) whereas in
Athens its president is a member of PAME, a syndicalist organization with links to the
Greek Communist Party. Therefore, an obvious explanation for the division among the
workers at the two sites is that the ones in Thessaly are represented by corrupt unionists
with interests identified more with those of their bosses than those of the workers they
are supposed to represent whereas the ones in Athens have managed to attain a pure working
class consciousness. Of course that is an oversimplified analysis, the truth is however,
much more complex. A few words about the structure of the unions in Greece are necessary
at this point. Compared to the charade of the general elections in the so-called states of
representative democracy, the situation in the unions, over which the workers should in
theory have more control, has come to a level of almost surrealist absurdity. In the last
round of elections in Greece, a country with traditionally high percentages of
participation in elections, almost 40% of the electorate chose not to vote at all (not
including all the immigrants without any electoral rights). According to a study, 52% of
the Greek workers say that workers assemblies do not even exist at their workplaces. It is
estimated that almost 75% of the workers do not belong to any unions at all. As if this
number did not sound scary enough, try adding the hundreds of thousands of unemployed. And
then add all the illegally employed. What about the temporarily employed?

On top of this, the overwhelming majority (more than 90% !!) of the members of the
executive boards of GSEE and ADEDY work for the public sector whose workers are protected
by more safety nets (e.g. until very recently public servants could not be fired). What is
more important though is that this striking imbalance reflects the very structure of the
Greek state itself (and therefore Greek capitalism) which has been built upon the
selective ?donation? of benefits among several special interest groups within the public
sector resembling in certain respects the tribal divisions in countries of the periphery
where capitalism has been forcefully imposed upon heterogeneous populations. Needless to
say, this is a poisonous situation that gives rise to fierce conflicts by essentially
turning these dependent groups into beggars of the great Father figure of the state and
competitors for its benefits.

Another factor that has alienated workers from the unions over the past decades can be
traced to their internal organization. As has already been mentioned, the very first
division among workers is introduced by the existence of two completely separate
high-level organizations, one for the public servants and another one for those working at
the private sector. These so-called third-level organizations cover the entire
geographical area in Greece and are led by their respective boards whose members are
elected among several groups with links to the established political parties, a process
not dissimilar to the one for the parliamentary elections. Below them, at the second
level, there exist the confederations, divided according to geographical area or type of
work and at the base of this hierarchical structure one finds the first-level societies,
attached usually to a specific business or company. As is evident, this structure
essentially reproduces the same pathological (and pathetic) situation to be found in the
centre of the political scene by introducing multiple vertical and horizontal dividing
lines of mediation and representation.

The above mentioned communist PAME, established in 1999, has tried to create a separate
and parallel structure, condemning the leaders of GSEE and ADEDY as traitors of the
working class. At the same time however, it participates in all of their proceedings and
elections without ever attempting to completely disengage itself from them whereas being
very selective about whom it chooses to support. Closely following the steps of the Greek
Communist Party, it keeps its distance from every movement and struggle over which it has
failed to gain absolute dominance while being very efficient at containing whatever it
leads at very manageable levels.

The net result of all these machinations amounts to nothing more than the appropriation of
workers? power by the professional unionists at the top into leadership positions who have
no problem becoming full-time professional politicians after exhausting all the options of
climbing up the Union ladder. It?s sad to think that this happened through a slow and
gradual process of self-mutilation which a large part of the working class experienced in
an almost masochistic daze of perverted pleasure, accompanied by the administration of the
?morphine? of loans, mortgages and the dream of someday moving up to a middle-class
status, back in the not so distant days of easy money. This works so long as a significant
part of those at the bottom of the hierarchy could maintain a lifestyle of reliable (i.e.
zombified) consumers by employing the usual exorcism rituals of condemning the union
elites as corrupt before going to the next electronics store to buy the latest gadget.
Once again, the most vulnerable part of the working class finds itself in a state of
paralyzing division and almost complete helplessness. In this perspective, one may have a
better understanding of the deadlock situation of the steel workers, a Gordian knot
becoming tighter and tighter each time they (or anyone else in position similar to theirs)
attempt to pull on the rope.
In search of alternatives

From our point of view, it is obvious that the raison d??tre of the unions, as they are
today, has ceased to exist. Now that the European capitalist forces attempt to restructure
the European economic zone in order to make it more competitive and catch up with the rest
of the existing or emerging economic superpowers, they have no intention of making any
compromises when it comes to lowering labour costs. For them, within their own political
framework, it is a matter of life or death. The time of the welfare state is over and no
return to obsolete forms of Keynesianism or Social Democracy is possible. The Unions, as
distributors of ?benefits? to and pacifiers of the workers, will probably discover, sooner
or later, that they have not only become useless for the workers but that the ruling
elites as well have no use for them.

It is therefore imperative that new forms of resistance are developed before it is too
late (if it isn?t already). Without going into a very thorough analysis, there are certain
steps that the workers can take, if they are to have any chance of surviving the onslaught
that is about to hit them (what we?ve seen is just foreplay). No matter how hard or
unthinkable this might seem, the workers can make their voices be heard and their presence
be felt again in a truly antagonistic manner only if they burn the bridges than still link
them with the existing unions and start building their own organizations again,
irrespective of whether this move might be declared as illegal. Organizations without all
these levels of mediation and at the same time less divided which should accommodate not
only those with permanent jobs but also the masses of the unemployed or precariously
employed. Organizations that should respond not only reactively and defensively, with
strikes and negotiations, but also proactively, by building international (if possible,
given the international nature of the current ?war?) networks of (material) support that
should be automatically activated in cases like those of the steel workers who had to
depend on the goodwill of their supporters.

Furthermore, if one understands the current situation as we do, i.e. that the time of
compromises is over, then the next logical step is to move towards more radical defence
tactics and even take the offensive. We may find one such example in Greece again. Since
May 2011, the management of the Industrial Mining company in Thessaloniki (about 500
kilometres north of Athens) has stopped paying its employees, again due to financial
difficulties. After months of negotiations and unemployment, the general assembly of the
workers reached the following decision. The workers should take over the company and start
running it on their own by dividing the shares equally among themselves. No wonder the
Confederation of Industry Workers was hostile to this action. You guessed right. It is led
by representatives affiliated with the ruling parties.

It is no secret that this kind of workers cooperatives may very well turn into fully
assimilated capitalist companies if they try to move towards production on a mass scale
while struggling to survive in the existing environment. However, we need to start
discovering those few threads that can loosen up the Gordian knot while preparing the
sword that will cut through it.

UPDATE 1: After this article was written, the few news media that cover the strike of the
steel workers have reported that the company?s management is taking all the necessary
legal steps to completely shut down the Athens site.

UPDATE 2: In the early morning hours of July 20, the riot police was called in to force
the strikers out of the factory so that it can resume its operation. A week after, the
workers? assembly announced that the strike was over. Let?s hope that this was only the
beginning and that this strike will wake up from their deep slumber those parts of the
oppressed whose dreams have not yet become serene, quiet and peaceful.

GUEST WRITER: Elias


and the city is on fire,

a beautiful fire
The only thing I felt a bit sorry for
was this small bookshop
Was there a book in there
that got burned?
a book with the answer written
in it?
So be it,
we're going to write
new books,
books that burn
but do not get burned
books that raise questions
instead of laying answers
For I come from this
very place right here
while my dream
comes from another world
and my brothers
are diamonds,
unbreakable, limpid,
and
they can etch anything,
when they want to

http://isnotpoetry.com/2012/04/29/sunday22/
A short documentary about the strike. In order to turn on English subtitles, press the CC
button.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0nFhLUNW0A

Related Link: http://www.wsm.ie
a-infos-en@ainfos.ca