tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39855952988080099952024-03-08T19:33:14.806+08:00Revitalising LabourLisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.comBlogger414125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-72625815086246591492023-07-11T15:27:00.002+08:002023-07-12T08:28:39.653+08:00France: Our country is in mourning and angry (united appeal)<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOAIwB69WjUx--nJGx5H-bxn8LIl5J81c3YGd7RwOz1AYrZELxG6AZGbdA5p48rnji17WzqSuXta7e06-dkRjRsTm-dCqmSqb9BMeSW98eXPOjgzG-M3bvb9Iwjoo18tG9QI-UTtWMa1PctHuzaMp9bh6rPtq8Y_DUBAZPGFlB3-imVMiqJ5speb3qrpI/s1125/360132734_1959188157776042_8194414605661381747_n.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="503" data-original-width="1125" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOAIwB69WjUx--nJGx5H-bxn8LIl5J81c3YGd7RwOz1AYrZELxG6AZGbdA5p48rnji17WzqSuXta7e06-dkRjRsTm-dCqmSqb9BMeSW98eXPOjgzG-M3bvb9Iwjoo18tG9QI-UTtWMa1PctHuzaMp9bh6rPtq8Y_DUBAZPGFlB3-imVMiqJ5speb3qrpI/w400-h179/360132734_1959188157776042_8194414605661381747_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Original is available <a href="https://nouveaupartianticapitaliste.org/agir/politique/notre-pays-est-en-deuil-et-en-colere-appel-unitaire?fbclid=IwAR2NkHFnmX-51kjjlDZRKRKgVX5GHGYPrEto8Enyazb-3f4WLadvPVSa7h4" target="_blank">here</a><br />
<br />
Our country is in mourning and anger. The murder of Nahel, killed by a police officer at point-blank range in Nanterre, has laid bare the effects of decades of discriminatory public and security policies targeting working-class neighborhoods and the youth who grow up there, particularly racialized and precarious people. The escalation of violence is a dead end and must stop. The essentially repressive conception of the police, and the legislative evolution of 2017 on the use of service weapons, aggravate what the population experiences and suffers in terms of discrimination and racist practices.<br />
<br />
The tensions between the population and the police come from afar and are part of a history marked by injustice, prejudice, violence, discrimination, sexism... and systemic racism that runs through society as a whole and has not yet been eradicated.<br />
<br />
The inhabitants of the neighbourhoods concerned, and especially women, often make up for the shortcomings in terms of public services alone. It is indeed the regression of these, the school, the places of sharing and culture, sports, the post, the administrations etc. and the decline in State support for associations, which have largely contributed to marginalizing these neighbourhoods and entire territories well beyond, particularly in the overseas territories.<br />
<br />
The abandonment of these neighborhood populations is aggravated by the economic context of impoverishment, inflation, rising rents, energy prices and the reform of unemployment insurance. Social inequalities particularly affect children and single mothers. This is shown by the revolts that have shaken the working-class neighborhoods in recent days in reaction to the tragedy of Nanterre.<br />
<br />
In addition to decades of excesses of a policy of maintaining order, security laws (global security law, separatism law ...) and exceptional measures, we have witnessed in recent days pressure from the government to set up expeditious justice. The imposition of systematic preventive detention with increasingly heavy sentences is not acceptable!<br />
<br />
The urgency is not that of repression, which will only strengthen the extreme right and set back rights and freedoms once again.<br />
<br />
Lasting appeasement is only possible if the government takes the necessary measures to respond to the urgency of the situation and the demands of the populations concerned.<br />
<br />
The UN has repeatedly criticized security policies and institutional problems of racism in France, particularly in law enforcement.<br />
<br />
It is discrimination that is a toxic poison that undermines the very idea of equality and sows despair.<br />
<br />
The far-right is making it its bed to further divide society. We denounce the call for civil war against working-class neighborhoods and the characterization of people who come from them as "harmful" by police unions.<br />
<br />
We condemn the constitution of a fundraiser in support of the policeman who killed Nahel at the initiative of a member of the extreme right and the absence of any action by the government, thus adding fuel to the fire.<br />
<br />
Everything has to be rethought and built. We must start from new bases, create spaces for broad discussions and learn from the mistakes of public policies over decades, respecting the histories, backgrounds, cultures and singularities that feed our collective aspiration for equality. It is high time to listen and take into account the demands of the inhabitants of working-class neighborhoods and in particular its youth!<br />
<br />
The situation requires the government to assume its responsibilities and provide immediate responses to get out of the confrontation:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Repeal of the 2017 law on the relaxation of the rules on the use of firearms by law enforcement agencies; </li><li>an in-depth reform of the police, their intervention techniques and their armament;</li><li>the replacement of the IGPN by a body independent of the police hierarchy and political power; </li><li>the creation of a service dedicated to discrimination affecting young people within the administrative authority chaired by the Defender of Rights and the strengthening of the means to combat racism, including in the police.</li></ul>However, nothing can be done without a different sharing of wealth, without fighting against social inequalities. Nothing can be done without the fight against poverty and precariousness, aggravated by climate change, rising rents and charges, and without strengthening public services and popular education. It is these projects that the government should tackle instead of carrying out regressive public policies that pave the way for the far right.<br /><br />
Our trade unions, associations, collectives, committees and political parties are mobilized to maintain public and individual freedoms.<br /><br />
In the immediate future, we call to join all the rallies and marches around these demands, everywhere in the country from Wednesday, July 5, like the march organized by the Truth and Justice Committee for Adama on July 8 in Beaumont-sur-Oise, and that of the National Coordination against police violence on July 15.<br /><br />
We call for citizen marches on Saturday, July 8 throughout the France and overseas territories.<br /><br />
We will build together the follow-up of these mobilizations.<br /><br />
Signatories<br />
Unions:<br />
Confédération générale du travail (General Confederation of Labour); Confédération nationale des travailleurs-Solidarité Ouvrière (National Confederation of Workers-Workers' Solidarity); Fédération Syndicale Étudiante (Student Union Federation); Fédération syndicale unitaire (Unitary Union Federation); Solidaires Étudiant-e-s (Student Solidarity); Syndicat des Avocats de France (Union of France Lawyers); UNEF le syndicat étudiant (UNEF the student union); Union Syndicale Solidaires (Trade Union Solidarity); Union Étudiante (Student Union).<br /><br />
Associations:<br />
350.org; Adelphi'Cité; Amnesty International France; Alternatiba; Alternatiba Paris; Les Amis de la Terre France (Friends of the Earth France); ANV-COP21; ATTAC France; Bagagérue; Conscience; Coudes à Coudes; DAL Droit au Logement (DAL Right to Housing); La Fabrique Décoloniale (The Decolonial Factory); Fédération des Associations de Solidarité avec Tou-te-s les Immigrés-e-s (Federation of Associations of Solidarity with All Immigrants); Fédération Nationale de la Libre Pensée (National Federation of Free Thought); Fédération nationale des maisons des potes (National Federation of Houses of Friends); Femmes Egalité; Fondation Copernic (Copernicus Foundation); Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré·es (Information and Support Group for Immigrants); Greenpeace France; Jeune Garde Antifasciste (Young Anti-Fascist Guard); Ligue des droits de l’Homme (League of Human Rights); Memorial 98; Observatoire nationale de l’extrême-droite (National Observatory of the Far-Right); Organisation de Solidarité Trans (Trans Solidarity Organization); Planning familial; Réseau d’Actions contre l’Antisémitisme et tous les racismes (Action Network against Antisemitism and All Racism); REVES Jeunes (DREAMS Young); SOS Racisme.<br /><br />
Collectives:<br />
Alliances et Convergences; Assemblée des Gilets Jaunes de Lyon & Environs (Assembly of the Yellow Vests of Lyon & Environs); Colère Légitime (Legitimate Anger); Collective civgTENON; Collectif des Écoles de Marseille (Collective of Marseille Schools); Collectif national pour les Droits des Femmes (National Collective for the Rights of Women); Collectif Nouvelle Vague (New Wave Collective); Collectif Vérité et Justice pour Safyatou, Salif et Ilan (Truth and Justice Collective for Safyatou, Salif and Ilan); Collective des mères isolées (Collective of single mothers); Comité des Soulèvements de la Terre Sud-Essonne (Committee of the Uprisings of the Earth South Essonne); Comité Local de Soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Aude (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprising of the Earth Aude), Comité Soulèvement Bas-Vivarais (Bas-Vivarais Uprising Committee), Comité les Soulèvements de la Terre Lyon et environs (Committee the Uprisings of the Earth Lyon and surrounds); Comité local de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Villefranche (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprisings of the Earth Villefranche), Comité local de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre Romans-sur-Isère (Local Committee for the Support of the Uprisings of the Earth Romans-sur-Isère); Comité nîmois de soutien aux Soulèvements de la Terre (Nîmes Committee for Support to the Uprisings of the Earth); Comité de soutien à Moussé Blé (Support Committee for Moussé Blé); Comité justice et vérité pour Mahamadou (Justice and Truth Committee for Mahamadou); Comité Les Lichens Ardéchois; Comité Vérité et Justice pour Adama (Truth and Justice Committee for Adama); Coordination des comités pour la défense des quartiers populaires (Coordination of committees for the defense of working-class neighborhoods); Democra'psy, Dernière Rénovation; En Gare; Justice pour Othmane; La Révolution est en marche (The Revolution is underway); Lla Terre se soulève en Corrèze (The Earth rises in Corrèze); Le Peuple Uni (The United People); Les Soulèvements de la Terre - comité Île-de-France (The Earth Uprisings - Île-de-France committee); Les Soulèvements de l'Entre2Mers (33); Lyon en lutte (Lyon in Struggle); Lyon Insurrection; Nîmes Révoltée (Nîmes revolted); Réseau GBM (GBM Network); Rejoignons-nous (Let's join); Collectif du 5 novembre - Noailles en colère (Marseille) (Collective of November 5 - Noailles angry (Marseille)); Syndicat des quartiers populaires de Marseille (Union of working-class neighborhoods of Marseille); Collectif Justice pour Claude Jean-Pierre; Youth for Climate IDF.<br /><br />
Political organizations:<br />
ENSEMBLE! – Mouvement pour une Alternative de Gauche, Écologiste et Solidaire (TOGETHER! – Movement for a Left Alternative, Ecologist and Solidarity); Europe Ecologie Les Verts (Europe Ecologie Les Verts); La France insoumise (Rebellious France); Front Uni des Immigrations et des quartiers populaires (United Front of Immigrations and Popular Neighborhoods); Gauche Ecosocialiste (Ecosocialist Left); Génération.s; Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anti-capitalist Party); Parti Communiste des Ouvriers de France (Communist Party of France Workers); Parti de Gauche (Left Party); Pour une Écologie Populaire et Sociale (For a Popular and Social Ecology); Parti Ouvrier Indépendant (Independent Workers' Party); Réseau Bastille (Bastille Network); Révolution Écologique pour le Vivant (Ecological Revolution for Life); Union communiste libertaire (Libertarian Communist Union).Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-46554976796277860222023-07-05T18:08:00.003+08:002023-07-05T18:08:40.962+08:00Why Australian unionists should build solidarity with Ukrainian workers and their Unions<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_2MSzH7LDNuQ-HYlJeM8frUQNVunoCMncgfKZSRZIcjzcrgv6ND6vUrhryi0vihPPJPj27WkNaGPHGozf76-71CLtnhHney_hIAOleYu-TL1u_GjMyPmGJt05RaNrSfJp4WrtQtxrQb8PC2YeRY42gIEwYd4Og-V04wB0stgYXKEfBvqKiRSvDihPOek/s1600/F0ICJUpXsA0GowJ.jpeg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_2MSzH7LDNuQ-HYlJeM8frUQNVunoCMncgfKZSRZIcjzcrgv6ND6vUrhryi0vihPPJPj27WkNaGPHGozf76-71CLtnhHney_hIAOleYu-TL1u_GjMyPmGJt05RaNrSfJp4WrtQtxrQb8PC2YeRY42gIEwYd4Og-V04wB0stgYXKEfBvqKiRSvDihPOek/s320/F0ICJUpXsA0GowJ.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Members of the Independent Miners' Union of Ukraine (NGPU) in Novovolynsk district with representatives of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign who were delivering donations to Ukrainian workers. Source: <a href="https://twitter.com/UkraineSol/status/1675905070699888640/photo/1" target="_blank">Ukraine Solidarity Campaign</a>.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div><div>
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
Sixteen months ago the Russian Federation launched a brutal invasion of Ukraine. Aimed at a quick lightning invasion, it was stifled, against all expectations, by the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian armed forces. This resistance not only blunted the attack but has been able to launch counter-offensives and liberate some Ukrainian territory - largely due to the much-delayed delivery of military equipment from Western imperialist governments. The ongoing conflict has sparked widespread debates globally about what attitude the left, particularly unions, should take to the conflict and how to achieve peace. I believe the only principled position for the left is to take solidarity with Ukrainian workers and their unions to defeat the Russian invasion. In doing so we not only have a position to build a better Ukraine post-Russia’s invasion but also our own ability to build a better world.<br />
<br /><b>
Picking sides</b><br />
In the sections of the left and labour movement internationally and within Australia there has been determined resistance against supporting solidarity with Ukraine. Arguing variously:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>That the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine was provoked by the actions of the US and NATO; </li><li>That Ukraine is acting as a proxy for NATO and as such denied military aid; </li><li>That Ukraine receiving military aid is extending the war, and as such aid should end;
</li></ul>
These arguments, apart from reflecting the position of the Russian Federation and its supporters in the global far-right, operate on the basis that global politics operate within a frame of a contest between two camps, US imperialism and its allies amongst Western imperialist states on the one hand, and an opposing camp of “anti-imperialist” countries in opposition to US interests and that it is necessary to pick sides in this conflict, with a view that the left must side with the opponents of US interests.<br />
<br />
There are a number of problems with this. As has been argued by a number of writers it constitutes the “<a href="https://shado-mag.com/opinion/on-ukraine-syria-solidarity-and-the-anti-imperialism-of-idiots/" target="_blank">anti-imperialism of idiots</a>” that <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm" target="_blank">simplifies politics to simply taking an opposing position to whatever one's own ruling class takes</a>. It also, as Indian communist and feminist, <a href="https://www.theindiaforum.in/politics/multipolarity-mantra-authoritarianism" target="_blank">Kavita Krishnan</a> has argued results in the left uncritically supporting the actions of authoritarian regimes not only internationally but also against their own popular movements in the name of defending and supporting “multi-polarity”. <br />
<br />
More importantly, it entirely ignores the agency of not just Ukraine as a sovereign country, but more importantly what the Ukrainian working class and their organisations believe is necessary. This has primarily been justified based on both the counter-posing of both US interests but also Russia’s right to a zone of influence - essentially accepting its right to a zone of influence where it can determine the domestic and foreign policy of its neighbours, similar to the US actions globally, particularly within Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine.<br />
<br />
Central to the denial of Ukraine’s right to self-determination has been the maligning of Ukrainian society and culture as inherently fascist and far-right. This in part echoes some of Russian government’s justification of war in painting the idea of Ukrainian identity as inherently fascist but relies on the presence within Ukrainian society, and particularly the armed forces, which are “riddled with far-right forces that venerate anti-Semitic Nazi collaborators”. The <a href="https://commons.com.ua/en/far-right-ukraine/" target="_blank">Ukrainian left openly acknowledges</a> that there has been, and continues to be, a significant influence in Ukrainian society by far-right forces. However, Ukraine is hardly alone in this problem, many societies have problems of far-right forces within society - indeed the Putin government is seen as a <a href="https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/exclusive-russia-backs-europes-far-right/" target="_blank">significant sponsor</a> and inspiration for many of them. Also, many countries, including Australia, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/sep/26/statue-wars-what-should-we-do-with-troublesome-monuments" target="_blank">popularly venerate, at least within at least a section of society, thoroughly reactionary if not openly genocidal figures</a>, it seems a strange threshold for a just war, particularly given that the most recent mass global anti-war movement against US imperialist action was in defence of Iraq, which at the time was lead by the Baarthist government with a long record of <a href="https://merip.org/2006/06/the-whole-range-of-saddam-husseins-war-crimes/" target="_blank">crimes against both its own population, particularly minorities, and its neighbours</a>. <br />
<br />
So what do Ukrainian workers and marginalised communities see as necessary in the face of the invasion? Ukrainian progressive organisations such as <a href="https://rev.org.ua/english/" target="_blank">Sotsialnyi rukh</a> (Social Movement), are very clear in their assessment that the <a href="https://europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article64260" target="_blank">defeat of the invasion is necessary for the broader liberation struggles in Ukraine to be successful</a>. The <a href="https://kvpu.org.ua/en/news/5771-statement-of-the-confederation-of-free-trade-unions-of-ukraine-one-year-into-the-russian-full-scale-invasion-of-ukraine" target="_blank">Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine</a> in a statement marking one year of the invasion said:<br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><br />“This unprovoked war was started not only against Ukraine. It undermines everything that we, trade unions, represent – peaceful labor, democratic values, sustainable development, and justice. The unjustified invasion of the Russian army into Ukraine endangers not only our freedom and independence but also peace and stability in Europe and the world.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">
“We call on all people of goodwill to help Ukraine and its citizens protect the right to life! Stand with Ukraine! Help Ukraine to win this 9-year war, to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and to return peace to Ukraine!"</blockquote><br />
For these reasons thousands of workers, members of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta03muVjAGo&ab_channel=%23UkrainianSpaces" target="_blank">LGBTIQA+</a>, <a href="https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/04/25/ukrainian-crimean-tatar-partisan-movement-eliminates-russian-military-unit-in-kherson-oblast/" target="_blank">Tatar</a>, <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/26/ukraines-persecuted-roma-community-joins-war-effort" target="_blank">Roma</a>, <a href="https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/events/people-cossack-stock-ethnic-minorities-and-war-against-ukraine" target="_blank">Jewish</a>, and <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/war-with-russia-changed-ukraine-feminist-movement/" target="_blank">feminist</a> communities are participating disproportionately within the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces, and partisan units in Russian-occupied Ukraine. As such, they have made it clear that they support the provision of military aid to Ukraine to enable it to defeat and roll back the Russian invasion.<br />
<br />
However, these forces also recognise that their struggle will not end with the defeat of the invasion. During the current invasion, the Valensky government has sought to carry roll back the <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/ukraine-workers-fight-anti-labour-policies-russia/" target="_blank">rights of workers and their unions</a>. It is also clear that both Ukrainian and global capital will seek to use any post-war rebuilding process in Ukraine to <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/ukraine-rebuild-liberal-reforms-trade-unions/" target="_blank">further liberalise the Ukrainian economy</a> and increase the poverty and marginalisation of Ukrainian workers. <br />
<br />
In the face of both the current invasion and the looming struggle in a liberated Ukraine, <a href="https://rev.org.ua/right-to-weapons-how-can-leftists-support-ukraine/" target="_blank">Social Movement</a> and the <a href="https://kvpu.org.ua/en/news/6012-rally-solidarity-with-ukraine-no-to-russian-aggression-war" target="_blank">Ukrainian unions</a> are calling for material support from the global labour movement to maximise the capacity of Ukrainian workers to organise. The ability of organisations such as the Confederation of Free Ukrainian Unions, to support its members, both as they continue to <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article7815" target="_blank">keep Ukrainian society functioning</a> and as <a href="https://kvpu.org.ua/en/news/5571-npgu-local-union-provides-aid-to-defenders-of-ukraine" target="_blank">they participate in the armed struggle</a>, not only to speed the turning back of the invasion but build the authority of the union movement in seeking to build a more <a href="https://www.chartist.org.uk/another-ukraine-is-possible/" target="_blank">democratic and equal Ukrainian society in the future</a>. <br />
<br />
It is essential that Australian unions join global efforts to build material and political solidarity with Ukrainian workers. The simplest way to build material support is to make donations to the <a href="https://laboursolidarity.org/en/n/2691/support-the-third-workers-aid-convoy-to-ukraine" target="_blank">solidarity convoys</a> being organised by those sections of the European labour movement that are supporting Ukrainian workers. Equally important is the building of direct links with Ukrainian unions and awareness amongst Australian workers of the current struggles in Ukraine. This is not just in keeping with our movement’s long history of struggle and solidarity with international struggles against imperialist oppression, but to maximise our ability to place pressure on the Australian government and its imperialist allies against their efforts to transform Ukraine into a neoliberal “paradise”. <br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><br />
Lisbeth Latham is a long-term union activist and organiser. She is a trade union solidarity representative in Australia for the <a href="https://ukraine-solidarity.eu/" target="_blank">European Network in Solidarity with Ukraine</a>. She tweets <a href="https://twitter.com/grumpenprol" target="_blank">@grumpenprol</a> and would like to hear from Australian unionists interested in building solidarity with Ukrainian workers. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><span>This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
</div></div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-19133401868532655992023-01-19T14:31:00.001+08:002023-01-19T14:31:37.889+08:00How we can respond to the cost of living crisis<div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
Throughout late 2021 and 2022, we have seen rising inflation pressures both in Australia and internationally. The growth in inflation, whilst initially dismissed as a serious problem, has now triggered sharp increases in interest rates by central banks globally combined with a significant rise in capital and governments blaming inflation wage growth and warning against the “danger” posed by efforts by workers seeking to maintain their purchasing power via wage rises - an action which has been blamed for driving the current inflationary pressure. <br />
<br />
<b>What is causing inflation?</b><br />
While there is generally a range of pressures at any given time to increase the cost of goods and services, the current increases reflect an intersection between different world events. These are primarily:<div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>the <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/02/17/blog-supply-disruptions-add-to-inflation-undermine-recovery-in-europe" target="_blank">continued disruption of a range of global supply chains</a>, many of which have their origin in China, due to the impact of COVID on manufacturing, transport, and distribution networks. </li><li>The disruption range of food production areas has been disrupted by extreme weather events, where crops have been wiped out or damaged, which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/17/anthony-albanese-says-no-doubt-flood-damage-to-farms-means-higher-grocery-prices" target="_blank">has driven up some food prices</a>. </li><li>The ongoing war in Ukraine and the economic sanctions imposed on Russia in response have caused significant disruption in <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-effect-of-the-war-in-ukraine-on-global-activity-and-inflation-20220527.html" target="_blank">Russian gas exports and Ukrainian grain exports</a>. </li></ul>All of these factors have placed upward pressure on the costs of goods.<br />
<br />
However, a more significant factor has been the decision by a wide range of companies to <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/subcommittee-analysis-reveals-excessive-corporate-price-hikes-have-hurt" target="_blank">boost the price of their goods to a level substantially above any underlying rise in costs</a>. This is reflected in a wide range of companies experiencing massive growth in profits substantially above their growth in turnover - suggesting that the primary driver is deliberate price gauging by these companies in a context where they believe they can shift blame for price rises to external factors.<br />
<br />
<b>Interest rates</b><br />
Globally the response of central banks to inflationary pressures has been to move to reduce the money supply by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/no-turning-back-global-central-banks-vow-stay-course-inflation-2022-12-15/" target="_blank">raising interest rates</a>. While for certain sections of the economy, such as in stock market speculation and the housing market, this will undoubtedly result in an effective reduction in spending that will not necessarily disrupt the economy - for most working people these rate rises are likely to cause potentially catastrophic disruption, that will not only be individually devastating, as a consequence of rising mortgage repayments in the context of significant and widespread mortgage stress, and the inability to afford basic costs of good. <br />
<br />
<b>Stagnant wages</b><br />
Wages in advanced capitalist countries prior to the current crisis had largely been stagnant during a period of low inflation, this stagnation has been exacerbated by the current inflationary pressure. Wage stagnation has been a result of: <div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Hostile industrial relations regimes that have weakened the power of workers and their unions whilst limiting the restrictions on employers deploying power; </li><li>An aggressive approach to bargaining and wage setting by employers as a consequence of historically low-profit growth </li></ul>
In Australia, the problems of enterprise bargaining under the Fair Work Act - which has seen record low wages growth in the past decade have been raised by both the ACTU and the ALP as a basis to amend the Act, most notably to enable unions to engage in multi-employer bargaining and have access industrial action during such bargaining, currently, workers are prohibited from taking industrial action in pursuit of a multi-employer agreement. <br />
<br />
The introduction of improved multi-employer bargaining will have the <a href="https://jacobin.com/2022/12/australia-labor-party-unions-industrial-relations-laws" target="_blank">potential to improve the bargaining power of those workers</a> who have been historically excluded from enterprise bargaining, however it is important to recognise that the legislation excludes more than 2 million workers employed in smaller workplaces from this bargaining pathway. In addition, the passing of amendments is unlikely to help boost the wages of many workers in the short term, particularly not quickly enough to address the current cost of living crisis. This is due to a number of factors but most significantly: </div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Bargaining is not a quick process; </li><li>The legislation won’t magically overcome the low level of union density, which is compounded by low levels of workplace organisation in the majority of sectors; </li><li>Many workers are already covered by agreements that have yet to expire and will deliver a decline in real wages over their remaining lives of those agreements </li></ul>As such we need to explore ways in which to address the cost of living crisis outside of wage fixing. The most obvious solution would be to create a universal income supplement that would be received by all. This would able to be more rapidly adjusted than wages, and by making it universal it ensures that other groups outside of wage setting systems, such owner operators and those on government pensions, also have their purchasing power maintained. However, the creation of an income subsidy should not be seen as counter to the existing push to increase pensions to the poverty line, but instead as an additional supplement to that. <br />
<br />
<b>Limiting price rises</b><br />
However, simply seeking to maintain working people’s purchasing power will be insufficient to deal with the current cost-of-living crisis. As increased purchasing power is likely to drive costs up in at least some sections of the economy. This is not because these mechanisms are necessarily inflationary - they aren’t - but instead, the maintenance of purchasing power would allow owners of capital to seek to increase their profits by absorbing this increased ability to pay. To ensure that we aren’t just boosting profits to sections of capital, there will need to be strict limits to increases in costs to those caused by actual inflationary pressures rather than gouging. While this is widely discussed in relation to power and fuel prices, there is no need for these companies to be compensated for their profit not rising as much as they could - indeed their significant profits should instead be properly taxed to help fund the income supplement. In addition, governments should act to freeze both rents and mortgage payments - both need to be frozen to ensure we don’t see mass defaults in the residential housing market - which would further open this market up to vulture capital buying houses cheaply in any depressed housing market, particularly in a period when working-class home buyers will face significantly higher borrowing costs. <br />
<br />
<b>Paying for an income subsidy</b> </div><div>A major argument against any such increase in social spending will be the state of the federal budget, particularly in the wake of the significant social spending during the earlier period of the pandemic, after all as Theresa May sad, “<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44524605" target="_blank">there is no magic money tree</a>”. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, the reality is that there are significant sources to improve the treasury’s revenue situation. </div><div><br /></div><div>The first of these is to not go ahead with third stage of tax cuts which were originally legislated by the former Morrison government. These cuts primarily <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/stage-3-tax-cuts-go-to-wealthy-occupations-low-middle-income-earners-miss-out-report/" target="_blank">benefit high income earners</a> and if stopped would <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2022/aug/26/scrapping-stage-three-3-tax-cuts-would-save-243bn-how-would-you-spend-it-calculator-interactive" target="_blank">retain an estimated extra $238B in government revenue over the next ten years</a>. <br />
<br />
Secondly, is to recognise, as John Christensen and Nicholas Shaxson have put it <a href="https://taxjustice.net/2019/03/05/the-magic-money-tree-from-modern-monetary-theory-to-modern-tax-theory/" target="_blank">“there is a magic money tree or trees: one version of which would be “tax havens, multinational enterprises, and the mega rich””</a>. Research by the Australian Institute indicates that five of the six major gas exporters paid no tax on $138 billion in revenue in the past seven years. This reflects the ongoing and problem of large corporations avoiding their tax obligations, a problem which requires, like in other countries, further tightening of a broad range of regulations. In addition, Australia should also look at imposing windfall taxes (that is higher taxes) on any profits that are being expanded as a consequence of them taking advantage of the current inflationary pressure, rather than look at increasing the subsidising fossil fuel companies to compensate them for limiting the extent of their profiteering.</div><div><br /><span id="fullpost"><div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div><span><br /></span></div>This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
</div></div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-59827488278497250042022-11-05T15:56:00.005+08:002022-11-22T07:26:44.972+08:00Ukraine: A "just peace" is only possible if Ukrainian people can defend themselves<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_ywT1ULFnwpTyxMfIwJ505dK5il4YrVjrBC_q_zA11inBFLB8I-PUvTkkcYhX1a46AIWdhu91XL7bc44fzoRZ9ymh5mATkB6dKLOemGDC0svuvqoOMTNf1TxcBDDRZ7fJbawg-aFnLGz9VvO0bVYFz4GLKPc06PfU2gFYxgs6Bx0hSkg1JhWLm59/s1090/%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_2022-04-07_180950705.png" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="818" data-original-width="1090" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_ywT1ULFnwpTyxMfIwJ505dK5il4YrVjrBC_q_zA11inBFLB8I-PUvTkkcYhX1a46AIWdhu91XL7bc44fzoRZ9ymh5mATkB6dKLOemGDC0svuvqoOMTNf1TxcBDDRZ7fJbawg-aFnLGz9VvO0bVYFz4GLKPc06PfU2gFYxgs6Bx0hSkg1JhWLm59/s320/%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_2022-04-07_180950705.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ukrainian anarchists within Ukrainian Territorial Defence Force source: <a href="https://libcom.org/article/ukrainian-anarchists-take-part-relief-population-massacred-kyiv-suburbs" target="_blank">libcom.org</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div>
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
In their recent opinion piece in <i>Green Left Weekly </i><a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/anti-war-activists-australia-should-campaign-just-peace-not-more-war-ukraine" target="_blank">Peter Boyle and Alex Bainbridge</a> argue that anti-war activists in Australia should be calling for negotiations in Ukraine and oppose any effort to expand the war. This is in response to <a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/help-win-peace-anti-war-activists-should-support-military-aid-ukraine" target="_blank">Fred Fuentes</a>’s call for support for the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. Boyle and Bainbridge make a number of arguments, similar to other sections of the Western left, which <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/03/02/my-letter-kyiv-anti-imperialist-idiots-west" target="_blank">Ukrainian radical forces</a> have rejected as being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, particularly the role of Putin’s Russia as the regional imperialist power. <br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">
Boyle and Bainbridge express concern at the costs of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on human life and the potential for this to escalate as winter approaches. Flowing from this Boyle and Bainbridge conclude that the West’s provision of military support, in the form of weapons, equipment, intelligence, and training, to Ukraine risks unnecessarily prolonging the war and thus human suffering. Instead of supporting, or even demanding military support, as Fuentes, and the Ukrainian left, do, Boyle and Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists should instead be calling for negotiations. <br />
<br />
This logic is fundamentally flawed. First, it ignores that the primary cause of suffering and death in Ukraine is the Putin government’s decision to invade. The risk of further loss of life and injury could be immediately avoided if Russian forces were to withdraw from Ukrainian territory unconditionally. For anti-war activists to demand negotiations or a return to diplomacy accepts that Russia has a right to intervene in Ukraine. Such a position echoes the debates in the movement against the Vietnam War. As Doug Lorimer wrote in his history of ‘<a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/movement-against-vietnam-war" target="_blank">The movement against the Vietnam War</a>’, in reference to the Communist Party of Australia’s call for the US to “Stop the bombing, negotiate”:<br />
<br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span>
“Almost alone, Resistance continued to support the "Out Now!" demand. We argued that "Stop the bombing, negotiate!" failed to recognise the Vietnamese people's right to national self-determination, the central issue underlying the war”. </span></blockquote><span>
<br />
Moreover, should negotiations occur between Ukraine and Russia, these negotiations would be informed by the balance of forces between Russia and Ukraine that exist at the time of those negotiations. The arming of Ukraine has allowed the Ukrainian people to initially blunt Russia’s invasion and subsequently launch counterattacks on a number of fronts. It is precisely this shift, in both the balance of forces and the momentum of the conflict, which has prompted some of Putin’s allies internationally, such as <a href="https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-crisis/trump-calls-for-immediate-negotiations-between-russia-and-ukraine-to-prevent-world-war-iii-articleshow.html" target="_blank">Trump</a>, to call for negotiations to occur. However, as <a href="https://novaramedia.com/2022/10/17/no-the-west-didnt-halt-ukraines-peace-talks-with-russia/?fbclid=IwAR09LETXl3-AwyxO6yDQ5znWfWglB-nDv_us5PRl3WKzDiZuPpHrNw8DPDo" target="_blank">Volodymyr Artiukh and Taras Fedirko</a> have pointed out, the Putin government has acted in bad faith around negotiations, primarily using them as “a smokescreen” for its aggression in Ukraine. <br />
<br />
An important question that anyone calling on Ukraine to negotiate regarding its national sovereignty should answer is, what would the basis of negotiations be, when <a href="https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ukraine-history-fact-checking-putin-513812/" target="_blank">Putin and his allies deny the right of Ukraine to exist as a state</a>? Calling for negotiations while Russian forces are on the backfoot but still holding significant amounts of Ukrainian territory would also place Putin in a position to demand ceding of Ukrainian territory as a basis for peace. Such an outcome could hardly be called a “Just Peace”, but more accurately the rewarding of criminal action. <br />
<br />
Central to Boyle and Bainbridge’s argument is the imperial ambitions of the US and its allies to seek to maintain the US’s global imperialist hegemony.
It is undoubtedly true that the US is seeking to use the conflict in Ukraine to undermine Russia’s attempts to re-establish itself as the dominant power in the territories which formerly made up the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. In doing this they also hope to isolate China as it emerges as an alternative pole of economic and military power able to challenge US dominance. <br />
<br />
Having said this, our assessment of US intentions should not be a primary determining factor in our attitude towards conflicts or popular movements. The orientation of revolutionary and progressive forces should be predicated on the needs and interests of popular movements, and not how imperialist powers might seek to maneuver in relation to those movements to protect their own interests. While many left forces have criticised the <a href="https://linestruggle.medium.com/on-rojava-and-the-western-left-bac1b858173e" target="_blank">Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for accepting military support from the US</a>, the Socialist Alliance (SA), which both Boyle and Bainbridge are in the leadership of, <a href="https://socialist-alliance.org/sites/default/files/Rojava%20%26%20the%20Kurdish%20Fight%20for%20Freedom.pdf" target="_blank">has historically defended the right of the SDF to receive weapons necessary to defend themselves</a>. Indeed, SA and <i>Green Left Weekly</i> have taken a position calling for the <a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/why-progressives-should-support-call-no-fly-zone-over-north-and-east-syria" target="_blank">enforcement of a no-fly zone in Northern and Eastern Syria</a> - which is to be enforced by the US and Russia. <br />
<br />
This begs the question, how the sending of arms to the SDF can be not just permissible but something that would be demanded, but we should oppose the Ukrainian people receiving arms to defend themselves? While our positions on different situations do not need to be, and shouldn’t be, identical, we should be able to explain why they are different, and I personally struggle to see how there is such a fundamental difference. <br />
<br />
I believe that progressive forces should defend the right of both Rojava and Ukraine to defend themselves and that this means being able to obtain military equipment from whoever will provide it. Indeed, as has been made clear by the Ukrainian left, particularly the militants of <a href="http://europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article64260">Sotsialnyi Rukh</a>, the defeat of Russia’s military aggression is a prerequisite for the democratic and social development of Ukraine and we should support their efforts to achieve that outcome. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span>
</div></span></div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-8152254507803834412022-09-25T11:47:00.004+08:002022-09-25T11:47:48.444+08:00France: For a feminist and trans alliance<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikqGs-AlEQTybMwKSapaqM2D2aiamAIcqrCX4VpZqZnC3VTGRs4WAk38rMIGgPd-edphfXlvNgqZj_9rWo9LoF0V15ewDBLuUwLDW1JpVesvVoU3nTnBYRMqLSWZD-N8mRgn5IHwYUHNZ4Fi392g-HVGt3gnzHng6ZmFbfjNtW2ZurPYvzY-GU7fkY/s1024/080_HL_ACORNU_1392089.jpg" style="display: inline !important; padding: 1em 0px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="682" data-original-width="1024" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikqGs-AlEQTybMwKSapaqM2D2aiamAIcqrCX4VpZqZnC3VTGRs4WAk38rMIGgPd-edphfXlvNgqZj_9rWo9LoF0V15ewDBLuUwLDW1JpVesvVoU3nTnBYRMqLSWZD-N8mRgn5IHwYUHNZ4Fi392g-HVGt3gnzHng6ZmFbfjNtW2ZurPYvzY-GU7fkY/s320/080_HL_ACORNU_1392089.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />September 22<br />
Originally published by the <a href="https://nouveaupartianticapitaliste.org/arguments/lgbti/pour-une-alliance-feministe-et-trans-tribune?fbclid=IwAR0XIlsjXjZQ8A6klZN1CrHE2Fu21etbEWzome4f93fb5m4ySWoeG3jayRk">New Anti-Capitalist Party</a><div><br />
Following the publication by Planned Parenthood of a poster for trans men in the context of their pregnancies, activists opposing the rights of trans people in the name of feminism signed on August 22, an <a href="https://www.marianne.net/agora/tribunes-libres/mme-elisabeth-borne-feministes-nous-nous-inquietons-de-ce-que-devient-le-planning-familial" target="_blank">open letter</a> addressed to the Prime Minister, Élisabeth Borne, in the weekly Marianne.<br />
<br />
We feminists reject this instrumentalisation of women's rights, fight against any opposition between feminism and trans struggles and condemn without appeal these discourses that are part of a reactionary offensive.<br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">
<b>The use of fallacious arguments</b><br />
Anti-trans activists denounce an essentialization of women by a so-called "transactivism", while reducing women to their mere genitals. This definition contradicts the majority of feminist writings produced since the 1960s. You are not born a woman, you become one. Similarly, what is referred to as sex covers a set of factors that go beyond the binarity imposed for centuries.<br /><br />
Being a woman does not stem from the mere sexual assignment, but from an exploitation that takes several forms: economic, domestic, sexual. Thus, contrary to what anti-trans activists claim, trans women are also exposed to these exploitations and to gender-based and sexual violence. There is no universal condition of "women" but a set of diverse experiences according to the social positions of each.<br /><br />
By basing their argument on the general public's ignorance of the struggles and experiences of trans people, anti-trans activists demonize transition paths. They show intellectual dishonesty playing on fear of trans children. Gender dysphoria would then become a mental disorder, operations, mutilations, and support from medical staff and the trans community, conversion therapies. As with marriage equality, the protection of children becomes a false nose behind which they hide to weigh in the public debate against trans people.<br /><br />
<b>Trans rights are inseparable from women's rights</b><br />
The current political period is seeing a violent backlash on women's rights, as the French government retains ministers accused of rape. Elsewhere in the world, the right to abortion is being violated, particularly in Poland and the United States. With 89 RN (National Rally) deputies in the National Assembly, we are not exempt from an attack of such magnitude. It is more important than ever not to get the fight wrong.<br /><br />
In the United States, the attack on abortion rights was preceded by numerous anti-trans laws: in Ohio, the Save Women's Sports Act provides that if a student's gender is in doubt, the student must undergo an intrusive examination to prove their gender. In all these cases, it is an attack on people's right to control their bodies. The arrival of similar attacks on trans people in France suggests a fate similar to that of the United States.<br /><br />
The essentialist view of women promoted by anti-trans activists is shared by reactionary theorists and masculinists. It is no surprise that these two groups have cooperated and that the far right is the first relay of anti-trans publications.<br /><br />
<b>What are the prospects for the feminist and trans movements?</b>
Regardless of whether transitions seem incomprehensible or abstract, trans people are not a thought exercise meant to question what defines male and female roles.<br /><br />
The current political situation is forcing the feminist movement to position itself in support of trans people's demands. Attending without taking sides is not an option. Not claiming to be anti-trans is not enough, we must actively demand with trans people and with feminists, trans emancipation.<br /><br />
We demand the autonomy of transition pathways, the simplification of access to administrative procedures, the training of health personnel, access to transitional care and full reimbursement.<br /><br />
We call for the real opening of medically assisted procreation to trans people and the facilitation of administrative filiation for trans parents.<br /><br />
We call for massive support for associations helping trans people and an increase in subsidies to ensure the sustainability of their actions.<br /><br />
We defend a materialistic approach to trans issues, that is, one that is not entangled in an essentialist approach to femininity, based on the experiences of trans people and not on what reactionaries fantasize about it.<br /><br />
We demand that the press and media take responsibility for how they represent and disseminate discourse about trans people.<br /><br />
We demand clear, economic and institutional support from political actors for trans people and their rights.<br /><br />
We stand against the instrumentalisation by anti-trans interest of the journeys of lesbians and people who have detransitioned.<br /><br />
We oppose the discord that some are trying to push between feminism and trans rights.<br /><br />
We call for the active support of all forces claiming feminism towards trans people.<br /><br />
first signatories:<br />
<b>Organizations</b><br />
Commission Proud and Revolutionaries of the Communist Party of France; Bread and Roses (Permanent Revolution); Europe Ecology The Greens (EELV); Homosexuality and Socialism (Party of the Radical Left); New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA); Libertarian Communist Union; Student Union Federation; National High School Movement; Student Solidarity - Unions of Struggle;
Sex Workers Union; Video Game Workers Union; Trade Union Solidarity; The High School Student Voice.<br />
<br />
<b>Individuals</b><br />
Ségolène Amiot, France Unbowed MP (LFI); Pénélope Bagieu, author; Alexandre Baril, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa; Marc-Antoine Bartoli, Prevention Coordinator of Act Up-Paris; Lauren Bastide, journalist; Amal Bentounsi; Alix Béranger, feminist, clinical psychologist; Marilou Berry, actress and director; Olivier Besancenot, spokesperson and former NPA presidential candidate; Agnès Bihl, singer; Pauline Bock, journalist with Freeze-frame; Billie Brelok, rapper; Barbara Butch, DJ; Marie Cau, only trans mayor in France; Magyd Cherfi, author, former singer of the group Zebda; Aya Cissoko, boxing champion and author; Clarika, singer; Pauline Clochec, lecturer in philosophy at the University of Picardy; Maëlle Le Corre, journalist and author; Margot De Re, Belgian ecologist and feminist MP; Virginie Despentes, author; Rokhaya Diallo, journalist, author and director; Karine Espineira, sociologist, Paris 8 University; Casey Fabries, co-secretary general of Act Up-Paris; Éric Fassin, sociologist, Paris 8 University; Julie Ferrua, national secretary of the Trade Union Solidarity; Amandine Gay, director and author; Murielle Guilbert, co-delegate of the Trade Union Solidarity; Adèle Haenel, actress; Andy Kerbrat, LFI MP; Aurore Koechlin, Collective Feminist Revolutionary and sociologist, Paris 1 University; Sarah Legrain, LFI MP; Mademoiselle K, singer; Tal Madesta, journalist and author; Alex Mahoudeau, author of "The Panic Woke"; Mirion Malle, author; Florie Marie, spokesperson of the Pirate Party; Jul' Maroh, transfeminist artist; Daria Marx, feminist activist; Corinne Masiero, actressChristophe Martet, editor-in-chief of Komitid (LGBT+ news website); Cloé Mehdi, author; Guillaume Meurice, comedian and radio journalist; Liza Monet, rapper artist; Yolande Moreau, actress; Danièle Obono, LFI MP; Ocean, director and actor; Paloma (Hugo Bardin), drag queen; Eric Piolle, EELV mayor of Grenoble; Jüne Plã, author of Enjoyment Club; Pomme, singer; Christine Poupin, NPA spokesperson; Philippe Poutou, spokesperson and former NPA presidential candidate; Paul B. Preciado, philosopher; Eddy de Pretto, singer; Charlie Rano, actress and director; Giovanna Rincon, director of Acceptess-T; Élisa Rojas, lawyer and activist; Mathieu Rigouste, Social scientist; Marina Rollman, humorist; Sandrine Rousseau, EELV MP; Olivia Ruiz, singer; Tahnee, lesbian Afro-feminist comedian; Maud-Yeuse Thomas, co-founder Observatory of Transidentities; Assa Traoré, anti-racist activist; Valérie Rey-Robert, author and feminist; Fiona Schmidt, author and feminist activist; Danielle Simonnet, LFI MP for Paris; Marie Slavicek, journalist at Le Monde; Kiddy Smile, artist; Saïdou, artist (Sidi Wacho); Shirley Souagnon, comedian; Louis-Georges Tin, founder of the World Day against Homophobia, Homophobia, and Transphobia; Usul, videographer and streamer; Mélanie Vogel, Senator EELV; Rebeka Warrior, artist; Dr. Imam Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed, CALEM Institute (Marseille). <br /><br />
<b>Associations</b><br />
Acceptess-T; Act-Up Paris; AIDES; Bi'Cause; CIA – Intersex Activist Collective; Collectives of Femicide Collages Paris; Feminicide Coordination; The national coordination of the collective #NousToutes (All of US); David & Jonathan; EFiGiES – students, doctoral students and young researchers in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies; Red Umbrella Federation; Fransgendre; Inter-LGBT; Lesbian Liberation; MAG Young LGBT+; Organisation of Trans Solidarity; West Trans; OUTrans; Family Planning; Pride of the Suburbs; The Trans Health Network; RITA ; Les Séropotes; SOS Homophia; Toutes des femmes.<br /><br />
<b>Media, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses</b>
Éditions Cases Rebelles; Éditions Hors d’atteinte; Éditions Les Grillages, maison d’édition trans et féministe; Éditions Libertalia; Friction Magazine; Revue GLAD! (review on language, gendre and sexualités); Gusoma, media afro-LGBT; Madame Rap, the first media dedicated to women and LGBT+ in rap; Manifesto XXI, média; PD La Revue; Revue Trou Noir; Women Who Do Stuff.</span><div><br /></div></div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-9434841266702969082022-05-29T09:46:00.001+08:002022-05-29T09:46:28.508+08:00France: The New People’s Ecological and Social Union and the political independence of the far-left<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJfECEOG9NWicq-h8ong3LaqlnbOsdDCmKexbynzN3i3rFJBkegKv2MSeIZLBDVFUhxplCRFO6FnJCBkQeJvvti3nohu02TZ9wJEZpaai99o36QuV2FdPSdMTdh0FPwzVUI9DBWvhQCQKk26Wy-2D_cgjMZZ34SrEJyNVvVPlYh-jwysRPVkRZXWmC/s1280/photo_2022-05-07_18-45-31.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJfECEOG9NWicq-h8ong3LaqlnbOsdDCmKexbynzN3i3rFJBkegKv2MSeIZLBDVFUhxplCRFO6FnJCBkQeJvvti3nohu02TZ9wJEZpaai99o36QuV2FdPSdMTdh0FPwzVUI9DBWvhQCQKk26Wy-2D_cgjMZZ34SrEJyNVvVPlYh-jwysRPVkRZXWmC/s320/photo_2022-05-07_18-45-31.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Launch of NUPES, source: <a href="http://www.melechon.fr">www.melechon.fr</a><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
<br />
Lisbeth Latham <br />
<br />
On May 5, the National Council of the Parti Socialiste (PS) announced that it had agreed to participate in a joint election ticket with much of France’s electoral left, via the formation of the New People's Ecologist and Social Union (NUPES) in the June legislative elections. NUPES is made up of the France Insoumise, the PS, the Parti Communiste (PCF), Europe Ecologie Les Vertes (The Greens), Génération.s (the party founded by Benoît Hamon, the PS 2017 presidential candidate in the wake of the 2017 legislative elections), and other smaller formations around these larger groups. The emergence of this electoral union follows Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s strong performance in the first round of the presidential elections. Polls suggest the bloc could emerge as either the opposition to Macron’s parliamentary supporters or if the momentum continues to build that they could be in a position to form a government following the second round. As much as this is seen as the most united the French left has been, the French far-left in the form of the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) and Workers Struggle (LO) remain aloof, with some raising concerns that this could undermine the ability of NUPES to reach the second round in some constituencies. In this piece, I will look at why this aloofness is a consistent position for the NPA and LO, and, at least in the case of the NPA, is not simply a reflection sectarian on the NPA’s part but instead, a continuity of the party’s position in the ongoing debate within France left on the what political basis to build a united left to challenge neoliberalism. <br /><span id="fullpost">
<br /><b>
Mélenchon's performance in the presidential election first round</b><br />
Mélenchon won 21.95% of the vote in the first round, coming in third behind Marcron (27.85%) and Le Pen (23.15%). This built on his performance in 2017 (19.6%) and 2012 (11.1%) and was the highest vote for a candidate to the left of social democracy ever (Jacques Duclos received 21.27% of the vote for the PCF in the 1969 election). However, it was in the context of a continuation of the historically low vote for the left of centre (left candidates totalled 27.31% of the vote in 2012, compared with a total vote of 43.75% in the first round of the 2012 elections).<br />
<br />
At the launch of the NUPES’ election campaign on May 7, Mélenchon told the crowd:<br />
<br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span>
“It is the first time in twenty-five years that a general agreement has been reached between all the forces of the traditional left, environmentalists and the youngest, the “rebellious”</span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span><br /></span><span>
“We had to lose the thread and have to weave it again so that, under our responsibility, we succeeded.</span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span><br /></span><span>
“What had not been done either by the leftist cartels, or by the Popular Front, or by May 68, or by the common program, we did it”
</span></blockquote><span>
<br /><b>
Basis of unity<br /></b>
The initiative to build a common left electoral block was initiated by France Insoumise reaching out to all left parties. The negotiations between left groups has given rise to essentially a unity platform for the election. This includes (the full accord is available <a href="https://www.parti-socialiste.fr/accord_entre_la_france_insoumise_et_le_parti_socialiste_pour_les_prochaines_elections_legislatives" target="_blank">here</a>:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span id="fullpost">
Increasing the minimum wage to 1,400 euros net (currently 1302); </span></li><li><span>The creation of a youth autonomy allowance; </span></li><li><span>The right to retire at age 60 for all; </span></li><li><span>Freezing the prices of basic necessities; </span></li><li><span>The strengthening and generalization of employee representation on boards of directors; </span></li><li><span>The repeal of the El Khomri Law and other counter-reforms of the Labour Code; </span></li><li><span>The affirmation of an imperative of ecological justice; </span></li><li><span>The development of public services, the refusal of their privatization or their opening up to competition, the creation of a public service for early childhood and support for old age; </span></li><li><span>The implementation of fairer taxation with, in particular, the restoration of the ISF and the repeal of the flat tax;
The repeal of security laws that infringe on our individual freedoms; </span></li><li><span>Real equality in the overseas territories, the right to water and the promotion of the Overseas Territories as the outposts of the ecological and solidarity bifurcation; </span></li><li><span>The adoption of a housing shield in order to limit the share of income devoted to housing, in particular by controlling rents downwards throughout the territory and the production of social housing;</span></li></ul></span><div><span><b>Building momentum and hope<br /></b>
Both Mélenchon’s performance, and the emergence of the NUPES, have given rise to hope that will translate into the possibility of building <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/05/french-left-wing-coalition-bloc-melenchon-nupes-nouvelle-union-populaire">a substantially bigger united left vote</a> - that will at the very least increase the capacity of NUPES candidates to qualify for the second round and potentially win seats - including increasing the capacity of its constituents parts to increase their number of seats. The coalition currently holds 42 out of 577 seats in the National Assembly, but if their vote was consolidated they could be in a position to be the main opposition voice to Macron and his Ensemble! (not to be mistaken for Ensemble which is a far-left grouping within FI) if it forms government, or as some are hopeful based on initial polling the possibility of NUPES forming a government with Melenchon as prime minister and thus side-line Macron as president. A <i><a href="https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20220505-will-crawling-into-bed-with-france-s-hard-left-save-or-sink-the-socialists-nupes-alliance-m%C3%A9lenchon-parliamentary-elections" target="_blank">Radio France Internationale</a></i> report that a recent Ipsos poll showed “56 per cent of voters wanted Macron to lose the legislative and go into a "cohabitation" with the left, while 57 per cent supported the left uniting to field joint candidates”. <a href="https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/france/" target="_blank">More recent polls</a> have suggested that NUPES could receive the largest vote in the first round, how this would translate into seats in the Nationally Assembly would be heavily dependent on how the voters who back eliminated candidates in the first round allocate their votes in the second.<br />
<br /><b>
LO and NPA aloof<br /></b>
Much of the focus on parties that are standing apart from NUPES has focused on far-left parties Workers Struggle (LO) and the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), although they are by no means the only forces standing apart with a number of PS candidates who are not in the seats that were allocated to the PS under the NUPES agreement announcing they will still stand. This focus on both LO and the NPA is primarily aimed at casting their refusal to join as being a consequence of them simply being sectarian Trotskyist forces. While this may the case with LO, <a href="https://www.lutte-ouvriere.org/communiques/reponse-au-npa-au-sujet-des-elections-legislatives-294595.html">who in response to the NPA’s request for discussions regarding the legislative elections</a>, noted the NPA were involved in the discussions regarding the formation of NUPES saying:<br />
<br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span>
“You present yourself as "the left of the left" with the project of "rebuilding a real left" to surf both on the disappointment of the government left and on unitary aspirations. We seek to build a revolutionary communist workers' party, totally independent of the reformist leaderships.”</span></div></blockquote><div><span><br />
These criticisms do not accurately reflect the orientation of the NPA to the process, or its criticisms, at least initially, of the new formation. The NPA was willing to meet with the FI leadership regarding joining what would become NUPES. With the NPA indicating in a statement on <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article7630" target="_blank">April 24</a>, that they would have been willing to participate in a joint slate based on the proposed common platform - however, their hesitancy to participate was framed on the basis of who else Mélenchon and FI were willing to include, most notably the PS, their focus on securing Mélenchon the prime ministership rather than NPA’s focus on building extra-parliamentary power via the elections, a power which would be necessary regardless of whether NUPES are able to form a government. With the adherence of the PS to NUPES, the NPA ruled out participation in the coalition, as <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article7651" target="_blank">Philippe Poutou</a>, NPA presidential candidate, said, “the NPA understood that in the end, its presence was not really desired by La France Insoumise”. <br />
<br />
In a statement issued by the NPA national political council on <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article7646">May 5</a>, they declared their orientation to NUPES candidates </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span>“In any case, we will call for a vote and support, including actively, the left-wing candidates of the NUPES, and we will not stand candidates against them. In other constituencies, against candidates labelled NUPES who embody a continuity with social liberalism, the NPA will seek, where the conditions are met, to give voice to an alternative, though unitive candidates, from the workplaces and working-class neighbourhoods, representing a fighting left, independent of institutions and social liberalism.”</span></div></blockquote><div><span><br />
The NPA has subsequently announced that it will stand 10 candidates formally as the NPA, which has resulted in public criticism from the <a href="https://lanticapitaliste.org/opinions/vie-interne/le-soutien-du-npa-la-nupes-pas-toutes-et-tous-daccord-loin-de-la" target="_blank">“Spark”</a> faction within the party, who declared on May 26, that its members would only support direct candidates of the NPA or LO, and criticised the NPA’s leadership of maintaining illusions in NUPES. <br />
<br /><b>A break with social liberalism?</b><br />
The NPA drawing a hardline regarding the participation of the PS in NUPES should come as no surprise. This is not just about the reality of the PS government from 2012 in refusing to reverse the Sarkozy’s 2010 increase of the pension age, which is now a central aspect of the coalition’s platform, or the significant attacks on workers seen in the El Khomri law (which NUPES pledges to overturn) that were passed in 2016. The NPA, and its precursor the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR), have had as its principal position for joining any joint electoral project, running through the discussion around both <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1043" target="_blank">a united candidate of the left</a> (2007) and the creation of the <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1559" target="_blank">Left Front</a> (2010) and all subsequent unity projects, which has been complete political independence from social liberalism in the form of the PS. The NPA/LCR has seen the willingness, particularly of the PCF, to enter into governments with the PS that have carried out attacks on social spending and workers’ rights as a key factor contributing not only to the collapse of the PS’s vote but to the position of parties to the left of the PS, particularly the PCF an issue that would come into sharp relief if either NUPES are the primary opposition party, but even more so if they were to form government reliant on the vote of PS deputies. <br />
<br />
Prior to the PS’s national council meeting, <a href="https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/legislatives-qui-sont-les-1-000-militants-ps-qui-reclament-a-olivier-faure-detre-consultes-sur-laccord-avec-lfi-20220504_RPU5OWV3TRG7REDRGH23B4P2EI/">over 1000 PS members signed an open letter against participation in NUPES</a>, and historic leaders, such as former <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/nupes-ravive-fracture-ps-bilan-hollande_fr_62738604e4b03ca8363d2a8d" target="_blank">President François Hollande</a>, have spoken against the union, arguing it is a “betrayal of his legacy”, which is undoubtedly the case. In response to the decision by the PS to join NUPES Carole Delopes, the president of the Occitaine region, issued a <a href="https://www.leparisien.fr/elections/legislatives/carole-delga-je-vais-reunir-les-militants-qui-refusent-la-liquidation-du-parti-socialiste-06-05-2022-C6PSMZQEKBAM5AEPGWX5LULTQ4.php" target="_blank">call to rally all those PS members who are opposed to the "liquidation of the party</a>". <a href="https://twitter.com/olivierveran/status/1522524181761605633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1522524181761605633%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.liberation.fr%2Fpolitique%2Fen-direct-suivez-toute-lactualite-politique-sur-lunion-de-la-gauche-et-les-investitures-pour-les-legislatives-20220506_HYEAICFLBZAJDLA7AVW7GZKXNE%2F" target="_blank">Sections of the right</a> have also called on the PS to run instead with them. All of this will present ongoing pressure not only on the PS electorate but also on PS deputies once elected. A key way this resistance was overcome has been both the PS and EELV being offered substantially more constituencies to stand in, particularly winnable constituencies than they would have been entitled to under initial proposals based on a proportional distribution of constituencies based on the component party’s performance in the presidential elections. <br />
<br /><b>
The problem of abstentionism in the working class</b><br />
The refusal of LO and the NPA to join NUPES and instead run their own candidates has raised concerns that this might result in some NUPES candidates not qualifying for the second round - interestingly the role of anti-NUPES PS candidates is not being raised in these same discussions. While this may be the case in some constituencies where LO and/or the NPA might poll well, the reality is that both parties' electoral base is small - both polling less than 1% nationally. Also, because of the relatively small size, there would be no guarantee that all those who would vote for these far-left parties would follow them if they were to join NUPES - at least a section of the voters being protests against the system rather than party loyalty. More importantly, in concentrating on the potential spoiler role that LO or the NPA might play in the first round, commentators are ignoring the much bigger challenge for the left - which is to substantially eat into what is currently one of the largest voting blocs in the French working class … those who abstain from the elections entirely. This bloc, both those who refused to vote, or spoiled their vote, constituted 28.51% of the vote in the first round of the presidential elections. Shifting a solid proportion of these voters would have a significant impact on NUPES performance, far more than the less than half million votes that LO and the NPA received in the presidential elections. <br />
<br />
Whatever the outcome of the legislative elections on June 12 and 19, the real test for France’s left will come following the elections. Either in building a consistent opposition to Macron as an opposition bloc in both the parliament and in the streets, or if results deliver a left government, the challenge of attempting to change France, which will face opposition not only from the right internationally and in France, but also, rising tensions in perspective within the left itself. <br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-6639484-1");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script></div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-46864029361902779792022-02-06T11:35:00.001+08:002022-02-06T11:35:16.256+08:00Action to address climate change requires a break with the profit and growth drive<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgiX5NBBO3Or681dihrSKx6LEKYB7JcoQ3xgN3lbh-MfwMZkzS6q_VLMBFxp_yl3sC-Kx7phe8SmhNANgCjv--gade7d-fu9YMe4lmGFYpWhPy52SEsAgsT_QUVu9trIq2Mq6T59_sgpSh12xWnZhsSUS1m9eRz-7In7YQvfSTKyRfta1agR1bem_YQ=s2400" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1920" data-original-width="2400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgiX5NBBO3Or681dihrSKx6LEKYB7JcoQ3xgN3lbh-MfwMZkzS6q_VLMBFxp_yl3sC-Kx7phe8SmhNANgCjv--gade7d-fu9YMe4lmGFYpWhPy52SEsAgsT_QUVu9trIq2Mq6T59_sgpSh12xWnZhsSUS1m9eRz-7In7YQvfSTKyRfta1agR1bem_YQ=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">Photo by </span><a href="https://www.stockvault.net/user/profile/101165" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #171717; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none !important;">Geoffrey Whiteway</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div>
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
As the Morrison government continues its determined defence of fossil fuel industries, there has been a range of attempts to justify a shift away from Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels- not just for its domestic energy production, but also as a significant source of export revenue. While many of the arguments focus on the environmental impact of Australia’s current policy settings and their potential flow-on effects on both life and the economy, some stakeholders have sought to shift the government’s position and build broader support for action by instead focusing on the missed economic opportunities of not moving to quickly build and expand production capacity and technology in the renewable energy sector. I believe this orientation, which seeks to win support for climate action on the basis of the opportunity for growth and economic expansion, is deeply flawed and actually undermines attempts to build serious and determined responses to the climate crisis.<br />
<br /><span id="fullpost">
<b>Urgent need for action</b><br />
Repeated reports on the state of the earth’s climate have made it clear that warming, ice sheet melting, and extreme weather events are all going to be worse than what had been projected in earlier modelling. According to the projections of the recent <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/#report-chapters" target="_blank">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report</a> “6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are set to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5°C, compared with 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2°C”. In addition, “impacts associated with other biodiversity-related risks such as forest fires and the spread of invasive species are lower at 1.5°C compared to 2°C of global warming (high confidence)”. In order to avoid a 1.5-degree-celsius increase in average global temperatures compared to 1850-1900, “we need to see a reduction in emissions of “CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). Even if this reduction in emissions is achieved, the report’s modelling suggests that the risk of exceeding the 1.5-degree target would remain. Furthermore, large-scale singular events like the disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would continue to occur, reflecting the “relatively large, abrupt and sometimes irreversible changes in systems that are caused by global warming”.<br />
<br />
As Australia continues to feel the disastrous effects of global warming, the Morrison government has become increasingly vocal and intransigent in its denial of human-induced climate change. Although some inner metropolitan ministers have indicated support for net-zero emissions in the distant future, the <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/dont-look-up-australias-endless-list-of-planet-killing-projects/?fbclid=IwAR2rfxFFbpnvSziYFugqwaWbEClOIORzd6Z8IQDqA7Te5irXM0jRXQcfG5c" target="_blank">LNP, and, to a lesser extent, the ALP, are wedded to the extractive industries</a>. These industries, which notably include extractive fossil fuel, comprise one of the dominant sectors of Australian monopoly capital. For this reason, we see MPs in both the LNP and ALP who actively talk up the continued necessity of fossil fuels, albeit at times conceding the need for “clean” fossil fuels, in Australia’s energy mix. However, most of these arguments rely on talking points regarding both fossil fuels and renewables that were at best only factually correct decades ago - most notably with regards to the cost of power and the reliability of renewables but are <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked" target="_blank">now just flat-out lies</a>.<br />
<br />
The government’s resistance to climate action has inspired some sections of the climate movement to build the narrative that Australia is missing an opportunity to shift its economic base and become a “renewable energy powerhouse” or to argue for changes that simply shift the source of energy, without reducing power requirements, such with the push to move towards electric vehicles replacing fossil fuel-powered cars. Notable examples include the <a href="https://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/climate/renewables#gs.cfv638">World Wide Fund for Nature</a> and the <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/38-days-step-up-will-australia-help-climate-keep-hindering/" target="_blank">Climate Council</a>. <br />
<br />
Undoubtedly, it is possible for Australia to play an important role in shifting the world’s energy production base to beyond net-zero, where we are releasing less carbon than the planet's capacity to remove it from the atmosphere. However, there are a number of problems with tying the need for climate action to drive up profits for capital. <br />
<br />
We know that in order to sufficiently reduce emissions we need a global reduction in emissions. However, the Global North, which includes Australia, disproportionately produces greenhouse gases so it is these economies that must drive emissions reduction. We also know that the Global South is understandably trying to increase its energy production capacity to boost living standards and productive capacity in order to better meet the needs of their populations. Whilst this growth will need to priortise social goods over boosting individual consumer consumption, it is of central importance that the lead on this shift be taken by the Global North. The Global South should be supported in achieving this through a mass increase in renewable energy capacity by imperialist economies such as Australia. However, unlike with what we have seen with limited availability of vaccines in the <a href="https://350.org/end-patents-to-tackle-vaccine-inequality-and-the-climate-crisis/" target="_blank">Global South due to protecting the IP of pharmaceutical companies</a>, this exchange needs to be based on genuine solidarity, not <a href="https://aidwatch.org.au/in-the-news/australia-invented-pacific-boomerang-aid/" target="_blank">boomerang aid plans</a> aimed at stripping the Global South of its wealth - a process that has continued unabated for more than 500 years.<br />
<br />
The climate crisis is not just about emission levels but is a reflection of capitalist social relations. These relations are based on a constant drive to build profitability and result in massive wastage. This is not only in the form of overproduction but in mechanisms that drive consumption above what is necessary to sustain life, pushing the planet’s resources to their limits - such as built-in obsolescence which ensures shorter than necessary life to goods. For this reason, responses to the challenge of climate change can’t be premised on continuing with a profit-first approach to the economy, which is a primary driver of push around the use of cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens, even if these investments are really <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/83a14261-598d-4601-87fc-5dde528b33d0" target="_blank">speculative Ponzi schemes</a>, which require <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html" target="_blank">massive power consumption</a> and have caused <a href="https://fortune.com/2021/10/27/bitcoin-energy-consumption-rolling-disaster/" target="_blank">power crises in country after country</a>. Either we seek to expand profits and continue on our express train to totally exhaust the planet’s resources, or make the changes necessary to have a sustainable economy that meets human needs. If we opt for the first approach we make it harder to make the argument for the need to move away from growth, which is just as essential to the planet’s survival as addressing climate change. We need to be clear about the measures that are necessary, and this includes seeking to achieve climate action based on degrowth, which has been defined as “<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/degrowth-case-for-constructing-new-economic-paradigm/" target="_blank">voluntary transition towards a just, participatory and ecologically sustainable society</a>”<br />
<br />
Finally, advocating for action based on its economic potential accepts the fundamental capitalist logic for determining action. That is the reason that capitalists and their governments have delayed action has been based on an economic judgement that it is better for the economy to not take action. Arguing that there is money to be made from climate action, simply takes this logic and flips it. In doing so advocates of this position help to undermine their own position should the promise of jobs and profits fall short. <br />
<br />
We need to reject the premise that action should be driven by what is profitable and instead argue for a position that prioritises effective action to limit climate damage and envisions a society that ensures a decent quality of life for everyone, whatever the cost.<br />
<br />
In saying this, I recognise that actors such as the Climate Centre and the WWF operate within the framework of the capitalist growth drive. So my argument is not primarily aimed at them. Instead, it is aimed at those in the movement who are open to the reality that we are pushing towards the planet’s limits and calling on them to embrace and argue for a climate strategy based on degrowth. The louder this voice is the greater the chance we have of building a climate movement that meets the challenges we face and to of lesser importance pull the more conservative voices of the existing movement into having to address and listen to our arguments and join us in saving the planet. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span></div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-37782321985855895982022-01-02T05:22:00.005+08:002022-02-02T11:38:31.240+08:00Everything is f***ed - So what do we do now?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgAqdmOIc6RCl4hBJiExVasM2yWIyf_WU8WgDw2G8wBNwjQ3v9SiaoWsiyBMqaSieJ8CpP2Gk7A5whnjX18HZSVirWP197icLi2nSAGUz5ari199hRQghKxa9QgEYg0j-_YoQb0DwyqXbvm5bKEFTuRafQ-B6Z4ejPZxl6BZV7OfvbPHGNjU2g4Pdyz=s5477" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="3651" data-original-width="5477" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgAqdmOIc6RCl4hBJiExVasM2yWIyf_WU8WgDw2G8wBNwjQ3v9SiaoWsiyBMqaSieJ8CpP2Gk7A5whnjX18HZSVirWP197icLi2nSAGUz5ari199hRQghKxa9QgEYg0j-_YoQb0DwyqXbvm5bKEFTuRafQ-B6Z4ejPZxl6BZV7OfvbPHGNjU2g4Pdyz=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Image by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@martinsanchez?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText">Martin Sanchez</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/s/photos/covid?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table>
<div>Lisbeth Latham</div>
<br />
Over the last weeks of December, the COVID situation in Australia has deteriorated, every day we see new records in the number of infections, as the health systems strain under the pressure of both infections and exposures. In response governments at both the national and state level have responded with both blame-shifting and with attempts to redefine our way out of the crisis, most notably with a change in the definition of close contact. In context, after two long years of the pandemic, it is easy to feel exhausted, demoralised, and it is easy to want to blame someone - there is plenty of blame to go around - but we can’t afford to feel any of those things for too long - as it is up to us to get ourselves out of this mess - because we can if we work together.<br />
<br /><span id="fullpost">
Many people have looked on in horror as Australian states, most notably NSW and Victoria, have loosened public health restrictions whilst COVID case numbers began to climb and the world faced the potential problem of the new Omicron strain of COVID which was widely feared as being more infectious. The decision to open up, despite these concerns, was justified on two levels, the first were claims by <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/omicron-dr-nick-coatsworth-says-australia-should-welcome-new-variant/news-story/6dc670f496b4cb74b29b21f74dfbe8a8" target="_blank">some public health figures</a> that while more infectious Omicron could potentially be less serious and thus help as a way out of the pandemic - it should be noted that at the time these claims were first made there was very limited evidence to support this view. Secondly, concerns of exploding case numbers were dismissed as fear-mongering. Finally, the repeated statements that it was necessary to “live with COVID” have carried both a sense of inevitability of widespread infection but that those who remain concerned about the danger of pandemic as somehow detached from reality. While this may appear new, it is important to understand that if the like of Morrison and Perrottet had had their way, the current response to COVID would have been the response in March 2020. The reason it wasn’t is they knew that people wouldn’t stand for it, but now twenty months into the pandemic people’s energy and resilience has been eroded and many more people are open to neoliberal selfishness that prioritises individual interests over collective good. <br />
<br />
It is extremely important to reject any idea that it was inevitable we would get to this point, whether due to the need to “live with COVID” or because of how infectious Omicron is. The current situation was anticipatable, and it would have been possible to take actions that would have limited and prevented the current explosion in case numbers. However, the necessary steps would have meant asking people to make sacrifices - an ask that is increasingly difficult both because the sacrifices that people have been asked to make have been so uneven and because of the almost constant media commentary decrying public health measures which have eaten away at people’s resilience, particularly after months and months of sacrifice and hardship. A significant factor that has warn down Victoria has been the ongoing mobilisation of anti-vaxx forces, <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/11/australian-new-age-wellness-right-wing-covid-lockdown-anti-vax-protests">urged on an encouraged by the Liberals and sections of the media</a>, that clearly cowed the Andrews government into seeing efforts at stronger health measures as being untenable.<br />
<br />
So, what do we do? Well our starting point has to be accepting reality. First, this pandemic is going to be with us for some time, it can’t be wished away. Secondly, the pandemic is being exacerbated by inequality, both on a local, national and international stage. Finally, the globes productive capacity in many areas is at their limits, while this is exacerbated by dynamics of the capitalist drive there are real shortages and these won’t be overcome easily, our responses need to take this into account. <br />
<br />
At present, we can’t immediately shift government decisions. However, there are many health measures that individuals can take to help contribute to minimising the spread of COVID. The most obvious are things like maintaining our mask-wearing, irrespective of government direction, socially distancing, minimising our socialising, limiting our movement to what is necessary. Obviously, some people will be in a position where there this is more possible than in others. In workplaces, where contact is necessary, then we need to collectively be seeking to win and enforce measures that seek to eliminate and minimise the risk of exposure of workers to COVID. However, the problem is that, with the current close contact definition, many workers who are exposed to COVID, and who should isolate, won’t qualify for PCR test let alone state financial support exacerbating the extent that during this pandemic that public health will come down to the individual decisions of workers and their own financial decisions. <br />
<br />
For this reason, we must be looking to demand a change of course by the state and federal governments:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span id="fullpost">
Immediate reversal of the close contact definition adopted at National Cabinet </span></li><li><span>Immediate action to make Rapid Antigen Testing free and readily available </span></li><li><span>Creation of a genuine job subsidy system to support all workers and sole-traders unable to work due to COVID exposure or closure of workplaces </span></li><li><span>Reinstatement of the COVID pandemic subsidy for all recipients commonwealth payments</span></li><li><span>Immediate action to increase funding to public healthcare system to enable these systems to initially sustained through the pandemic and then expanded</span></li><li><span>Expanded support by Australia to ensure poorer nations have expanded access to vaccines as an urgent step to limit the emergence of new COVID strains</span></li></ul>
<br />
The Morrison government will not simply agree to any of these actions, for that reason we will need to look to work collectively to place social, industrial, and economic pressure on the government through whatever mechanisms are available to us in the context of a global pandemic. It will be hard work, but persistent and expanding pressure can shift their actions, not because they suddenly care about us, but because they understand that we won’t stop.<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-19713276425560772612021-10-11T14:32:00.000+08:002021-10-11T14:32:30.704+08:00Italy: Joint union call for anti-fascist demonstration in Rome<div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">“No more fascisms” Landini, Sbarra and Bombardieri,<br />16 October demonstration in Rome</span></b></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzRS7Bpls78HFNWWqvlhAE6S2OTo0SkeczbX7kfk9HXLttc9LR9VKrOeYHEEI7rAZYB6YJ5QXwe5LFJpJcDTB4g9lyYJ2S9E7K-JJJ5uvQjpLawDvojmankJY0yMShQBd-OrhFwoydnQA/s960/244747003_10159651286588988_567701019539319089_n.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzRS7Bpls78HFNWWqvlhAE6S2OTo0SkeczbX7kfk9HXLttc9LR9VKrOeYHEEI7rAZYB6YJ5QXwe5LFJpJcDTB4g9lyYJ2S9E7K-JJJ5uvQjpLawDvojmankJY0yMShQBd-OrhFwoydnQA/s320/244747003_10159651286588988_567701019539319089_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">October 10 protest by CGIL members in response to the fascist attack, source: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CGILsindacato/photos/pcb.10159651286743988/10159651286573988/">CGIL</a> <br /><br /></span></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">Statement by Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL), Italian Confederation of Workers' Trade Unions (CISL), and Italian Labour Union (UIL)</span></div>
<a href="http://www.cgil.it/mai-piu-fascismi-landini-sbarra-e-bombardieri-16-ottobre-manifestazione-a-roma/?fbclid=IwAR3yfhgLxYKqzN5FZ5HDqFu97hhGFBmY0e2IDJlqPTya7oE8jpQm9aFQXvo" target="_blank">Posted on 09/10/2021</a><br />
<br />
"The CGIL, CISL and UIL will organize a major national anti-fascist demonstration for work and democracy on Saturday 16 October in Rome". This was stated by the general secretaries of the three trade union confederations, Maurizio Landini, Luigi Sbarra and PierPaolo Bombardieri.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mal06Smk5CQ" width="320" youtube-src-id="mal06Smk5CQ"></iframe></div>
“The squadron assault on the national headquarters of the CGIL” said the three union leaders – “is an attack on all Italian union confederations, on the world of work and on our democracy. We ask that the neo-fascist and neo-Nazi organizations be put in a position to do no harm by legally dissolving them”.<br />
<br />
“It is time” concluded Landini, Sbarra and Bombardieri, “to affirm and implement the principles and values of our Constitution. We, therefore, invite all citizens and the healthy and democratic forces of the country to mobilize and take to the streets next Saturday ”.<br /><br />Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-33712915466293265452021-10-06T05:29:00.003+08:002021-10-06T05:30:25.463+08:00How do we build support for COVID vaccinations?<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_p6XK412J89eZ5tdeUSkYI2mB5yAyE94oy66dwuqs-DxMyTzA5NYz5qjiX372y5_M1XIG9dmqwamOjb81pRL1KWY2meSKzDp91I-UqnuTqcjtLq8myt8xTXax3CIZlLoHiGAfi45GGcc/s976/_120631928_hi070740139.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="549" data-original-width="976" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_p6XK412J89eZ5tdeUSkYI2mB5yAyE94oy66dwuqs-DxMyTzA5NYz5qjiX372y5_M1XIG9dmqwamOjb81pRL1KWY2meSKzDp91I-UqnuTqcjtLq8myt8xTXax3CIZlLoHiGAfi45GGcc/s320/_120631928_hi070740139.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
As the drive to raise vaccination rates increases and concerns regarding the ability of many industries which have either been shut down or pushed remotely to be able to safely return to the workplaces, there has been increased discussion of whether and how vaccination should be made compulsory. While the events in late September on Melbourne construction sites and outside the offices of the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/cfmeu-claims-violent-union-protest-hijacked-anti-vaxxers/13551078" target="_blank">Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining, Maritime, and Energy Union</a>, has been the most visible articulation of this debate it has not and will not end there. As both governments and individual employers have moved to make vaccines mandatory. In my view, much of this discussion misses the point. At best it distracts from the broader discussions that need to be had about how, in the context of COVID, we can ensure that workplaces are safe for workers and the broader public. At worst the discussion gives succour and ammunition to the bad faith and anti-working class actor in the anti-lockdown/anti-vaccination camp.<br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">
<b>What are Vaccine mandates</b>?<br />
Vaccine mandates are legal requirements for people to be vaccinated to do specific activities. They should be based on medical evidence to support the requirement for vaccination to make a space safe. However, any legal requirement to be vaccinated needs to contemplate the need and make exemptions for individuals who are medically unable to be vaccinated - this accommodation does not need to mean the individual will perform the same duties, indeed there may well be a need to adjust their duties to protect them from the risk of exposure. Such medical mandates are not new, they already exist in a number of work contexts where exposure to or potential risk of <a href="http://www.health.vic.gov.au/healthvictoria/mar20/vax.htm" target="_blank">transmission of specific communicable diseases are considered high</a>. <br />
<br />
In response to both hypothetical and concrete discussions regarding the introduction of workplace mandates, there has been a growing argument that such mandates are “heavy-handed” and remove choice from working people. The majority of these statements have come from organisations and individuals who ostensibly support and promote vaccination - although some, such as the LNP aligned “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/fake-unions-new-associations-ride-jab-mandate-fears-to-get-members-20210929-p58vri.html" target="_blank">Red Unions</a>”, which are clearly <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/queensland-lnp-health-spokeswoman-is-a-member-of-anti-covid-vax-union-20211001-p58wfd.html" target="_blank">bad faith actors</a>, and are <a href="https://thewest.com.au/news/health/rival-nurses-union-fights-qld-jab-order-c-4102655" target="_blank">openly hostile to vaccination and seeking to build themselves</a> on the most likely false promise of defeating mandatory vaccination. I have concerns about direct objections to mandates, particularly on the basis of “choice”. <br />
<br />
First, by focusing on an objection to mandates, individuals and organisations get distracted from their ostensive objective, which is supposedly maximising the number of people who are vaccinated. In doing so they tend to inadvertently lend their arguments to those opposed to vaccinations, for whatever reason they may oppose it. It is vital that those who recognise the need for mass vaccinations to promote workplace and public safety, not get distracted from supporting and facilitating people being vaccinated. <br />
<br />
Secondly, the use of language regarding “choice” is a misnomer. Mandates don’t remove choice, they do however change the potential consequences of that choice. It means that in those parts of life, where medical advice is that vaccines are necessary, the individual in choosing not to be vaccinated is choosing not to be able to be in that space. This is no different to if individuals refuse to wear personal, protection, equipment, that choice means they cannot perform certain work. While there are differences between a vaccine and PPE, there are two things to note. The first is that many of those who defend their right to refuse vaccination, also demand the right to refuse to wear masks or follow other health advice with regard to minimising COVID transmission. The second is that refusal to follow safety requirements does not simply have potential personal impacts, it can put others at risk, this is particularly the case with COVID where there is the strong risk of not only further transmission but also the strain that transmissions have on the health care system and the ability for that system to provide other care to the community.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, in focussing on vaccine mandates, we risk allowing employers and governments to avoid the equally important discussion about what other OHS measures need to be put in place to ensure that employers meet their obligations to provide safe workplaces. To counter this, workers and their unions need to be demanding consultation by employers not just about vaccinations, but other elimination and mitigation steps that are necessary in the workplace - these measures should not be just about direct risks of the virus, but also processes for ensuring that if there are requirements for members of the public to be vaccinated in order to interact with the workplace that the mechanisms for ensuring this is safe for workers. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYHyfjBxC0itLZKSohrWoka_dFUWPHy2m7P2qVirTsf0VyCsEztsZxA5S4df7azIRnKMXHvAsCRJAMxvoRSHaO0cQORG3nmdmp1Xk9qVQUcCbS5EEw5N6JTB37mU6vpVO4v8BC9dmxJjA/s1800/merlin_171754212_1ce75293-f66c-4429-9b64-c2581d2acb49-mediumSquareAt3X.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1800" data-original-width="1800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYHyfjBxC0itLZKSohrWoka_dFUWPHy2m7P2qVirTsf0VyCsEztsZxA5S4df7azIRnKMXHvAsCRJAMxvoRSHaO0cQORG3nmdmp1Xk9qVQUcCbS5EEw5N6JTB37mU6vpVO4v8BC9dmxJjA/s320/merlin_171754212_1ce75293-f66c-4429-9b64-c2581d2acb49-mediumSquareAt3X.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Finally, many of the anti-vaccination forces are deeply cynical and willing to coopt and misrepresent arguments in order to buttress and built their position. The most obvious example of this is the cooption of the language of the reproductive rights movement as slogans of the movement. As such, it is important that we take every measure possible to ensure that any argument that we make cannot be used to argue against our objective, the vaccination of the maximum number of people possible in order to maximise public safety and health. <br />
<br />
Instead of raising concerns regarding the potential of compulsion with regard to accessing vaccines what the movement needs to be focusing on is how we help to build public support for getting vaccinated. This is not new. Unions have a long history of build public support for health and safety campaigns - to normalise and make natural the steps necessary to keep people safe. This should be our focus. How do we, as a movement, expand the support for and the understanding of the need to be vaccinated and to continue to follow all public health measures to help reduce the transmission of COVID. In doing so we will not only make mandates irrelevant, but we will strengthen our ability to enforce safe workplaces that put health and safety before profits, and also constrain and limit the space that reactionary forces have to use the anxiety around COVID to build a movement against the interests of working people. <br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span>
Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-65551118784302796342021-10-05T06:21:00.005+08:002021-10-06T05:29:57.238+08:00Capitalist oligarchy resist new tax regulations in Argentina<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUX_yum0m2Kj5lLsQ13VamUtJVPDiRvriUHPzYu1L0aXQAqmFU_YiX_RdnUNyIdZGIk-AzaqtZlCNzInj8Ydlf8MJkaiuca5kpycWAkFc7eY387fEEBbtNWvBvvg2XztrV907dLyRB7q4/s2048/AFIP_%2528Argentina%2529.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1542" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUX_yum0m2Kj5lLsQ13VamUtJVPDiRvriUHPzYu1L0aXQAqmFU_YiX_RdnUNyIdZGIk-AzaqtZlCNzInj8Ydlf8MJkaiuca5kpycWAkFc7eY387fEEBbtNWvBvvg2XztrV907dLyRB7q4/s320/AFIP_%2528Argentina%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Federal Administration of Public Revenue building. Buenos Aires source <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AAFIP_(Argentina).jpg&psig=AOvVaw2FtpUrJLB5vy_lRjLPKSue&ust=1633472148557000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAwQjhxqFwoTCLC8-I3ksfMCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></span></span></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div>Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
The publishing of the <a href="https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/" target="_blank">Panama Papers</a> in 2016 and in the last week the <a href="https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/" target="_blank">Pandora Papers</a> have highlighted the systematic tax avoidance by multinational companies and rich individuals. In response, there has been a growing attention on the need for nations to close loopholes in their tax codes. This is due to the decline in tax revenue meaning that only is there less money available for social services, but being used as a justification for even more drastic reductions in government spending particularly those associated with social programs. While some of this focus has been at the level of multilateral cooperation, at the same time individual governments have considerable power to close loopholes in their own tax codes loopholes which enable global tax avoidance. Since 2020, the Alberto Fernández government in Argentina has introduced a range of new tax codes which have met with vigorous opposition from capital and their representatives within Argentina’s right.<br />
<br /><span id="fullpost"><b>The problem of global tax avoidance</b><br />
According to the <a href="https://taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The_State_of_Tax_Justice_2020_ENGLISH.pdf" target="_blank"><i>State of Tax Justice 2020</i></a> report, the global loss of tax revenue globally due to tax avoidance by multinationals and rich individuals is $427 billion (USD). Of this lost revenue, $245 billion is a consequence of multinational companies shifting profits to subsidiaries in low tax havens to underreport their profits in the countries they are actually carrying out their business in. A further $182 billion in potential global tax revenue is lost as a consequence of wealthy individuals hiding undeclared assets and incomes offshore. <br />
<br />
Much of the avoidance by multinational is aimed taking advantage of bilateral agreements to avoid “double taxation”, where governments have entered into agreements to avoid a single income stream being taxed twice - however with minimization arrangements the rich deliberately and artificially shift the income so that it appears it to have generated in the lower tax jurisdiction rather than where the actual work and income generation occurred. <br />
<br />
While the reduction in tax revenue is unsurprisingly greatest in high-income nations $382.7 billion (2.5% of collected tax revenue), the actual impact on revenue on low-income nations is far higher $45 billion (5.8% of collected tax revenue). This disproportionate impact makes it essential that action in addressing tax minimization and avoidance is taken globally. In Latin America, according to the <i><a href="https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/documents/Tax-Transparency-in-Latin-America-2021.pdf" target="_blank">Tax Transparency in Latin America Report</a></i>, lost revenue due to tax non-compliance was estimated at 6.1% of GDP in 2018. <br />
<br />
Latin America also has a disproportionate level of wealth held offshore with an estimate of EUR 900 billion or 27% held offshore, compared to Asia (4%), Europe (11%) and the United States (4%).<br />
<br />
Initial efforts at closing loopholes have occurred primarily in the global north, most particularly the EU and North America, however, there have also been important steps taken in countries of the global south, most notably South Africa and Argentina. <br />
<br />
<b>Argentina’s tax code changes</b><br />
Argentina has had a transfer pricing system, which sets the methods and rules for pricing transactions between and within enterprises with the same ownership or control, within its tax code since 1998. Tax regulation was further updated in 2017 by the Mauricio Macri government, this was updated following the recommendations by the <i><a href="https://www.oecd.org/ctp/BEPSActionPlan.pdf" target="_blank">Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and the G20 action plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting</a></i> in response to the Panama Papers, however, these changes did not fully comply with the recommendations and the code was not seen as being sufficient to address the problem of tax minimization and reduction by either multinationals or rich individuals. <br />
<br />
In 2020, the Argentine government, via the Federal Administration of Public Revenue (AFIP) brought in a range of new tax regulations aimed at both closing tax loopholes and creating greater transparency regarding the incomes of companies and individuals, particularly where international parties are involved. The most significant changes being contained within General Resolutions 4697, 4838, and 4879.<br />
<br />
<b><i><a href="https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/227833/20200415" target="_blank">General Resolution 4697</a></i></b> creates a requirement for companies and individuals, other than trusts or foundations, to disclose ownership structures and income (including passive income) to AFIP. In addition, the resolution requires those companies and individuals encompassed by the code to disclose and report their tax arrangements.<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/236310/20201020" target="_blank">General Resolution 4838</a></b></i> requires the disclosure of domestic and international tax plans of both individuals and corporations. This obligation is placed on both the “taxpayer” and “tax advisors”. The resolution includes the requirement to disclose information on assets and tax systems of an entity operating in a tax haven or other jurisdiction that would otherwise limit disclosure.<br />
<br />
<b><i><a href="https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/238387/20201214" target="_blank">General Resolution 4879</a></i></b> requires the disclosure of ultimate beneficial ownership interests within trusts (which normally obscure precise ownership relationships).<br />
<br />
<b>Response of the ultra-rich</b><br />
The changes to Argentina tax regulations have met with opposition and criticism from both accountants and sections of capital. Accountants, such as <a href="https://www.iprofesional.com/impuestos/325976-afip-vs-tributaristas-criticas-a-la-nueva-planificacion-fiscal" target="_blank">César Litvin</a>, have raised concerns that the new regulations undermine their professional privacy as they are required to disclose their clients' tax systems which may or not be being used to minimize tax obligations within Argentina, describing the requirement to disclose client’s savings systems as a “violence” against professional confidentiality. The system does allow tax agents to claim professional confidentiality in reporting, however, the tax agents have complained that doing so will create the impression that the client has something to hide regarding their tax plans. While sections of capital have also that the minimum threshold for reporting is at the discretion of the AFIP and that disclosure of the information is required not just to AFIP but to other parties.<br />
<br />
This has given rise to a number of legal challenges to the constitutionality of the resolutions, by accountants and tax lawyers, primarily on the basis that they argue that such changes to tax rules and reporting requirements should have required legislative changes rather than by a directive from the AFIP. However, these challenges which initially had some success in administrative courts have been <a href="https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/la-justicia-comienza-darle-razon-afip-avanza-nid2600240/" target="_blank">rejected in a series of hearings since January</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Need for solidarity with Argentina and action by other states</b><br />
While it is important that jurisdictions such as Argentina and South Africa take action to limit tax avoidance, and their efforts should be supported and applauded, it is also important to recognize that actions taken by individual state actors, particularly those with relatively smaller economies will not only be insufficient to challenge the problem of global avoidance, but it is also likely to result in significant divestment in these jurisdictions outside of investment in extractive industries. This is because capital, if given the opportunity, will seek to punish jurisdictions that tax them by investing and focusing investment on jurisdictions that are more “business-friendly”, with the exception of those industries where there are fewer options regarding the location of investment, as part of the global race to the bottom in terms of taxation as in other industries. For this reason, it is essential that other jurisdictions, particularly those in the global north not only seek to place serious limits on tax avoidance in their own jurisdictions but support efforts by the global south to extract taxes from multinational companies. An important phase in expanding this response will be the next round of the <a href="https://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/what-we-do/technical-assistance/punta-del-este-declaration.htm" target="_blank">Punta del Este Declaration on Transparency</a>, a Latin American multilateral initiative aimed at increased international tax cooperation, which Argentina is chairing in 2021, its next reporting meeting is in November.<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-45115406382518263602021-09-20T15:36:00.002+08:002021-09-20T15:36:46.679+08:00The sobering reality of opening up<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy-Iv57Q94wepnqKuhO7sZXfgmO1SvCQ_QGlVoGnMVFWuSzx-uKo990bnzmL1n3f0NJdhQHAA3eeka8PMxTHjDM8w_s4PzroVzRrKB-46MjxwJArba7sz8-1impE5r46BINCfuwZ6NBE0/s1200/1920_sars-cov-2-without-background.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1195" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhy-Iv57Q94wepnqKuhO7sZXfgmO1SvCQ_QGlVoGnMVFWuSzx-uKo990bnzmL1n3f0NJdhQHAA3eeka8PMxTHjDM8w_s4PzroVzRrKB-46MjxwJArba7sz8-1impE5r46BINCfuwZ6NBE0/s320/1920_sars-cov-2-without-background.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
In recent weeks, political and media commentary about the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia has focused on the question of when, in the context of growing vaccination rates, the country should consider ‘opening up’ (in this context a permanent and total break from lockdowns). <br />
<br />
This discussion conveniently ignores the reality that the situation in Australia -particularly in NSW and Victoria - is increasingly out of control and, consequently, neglects the more urgent questions of what should be done now. Despite the situation in NSW, the state government is pushing ahead with its plans to lift restrictions for the vaccinated leaving many of the poorest and most culturally and linguistically diverse local government areas in lockdown[1].<br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost"><b>
Are Lockdowns sustainable?</b><br />
This is not a simple question. Nonetheless, it is the case that there is a limit to how long the current lockdowns can be sustained. This is due to the insufficient support being provided to those in the most economically precarious circumstances. This lack of support, which has only worsened as the pandemic has progressed, only serves to punish workers whose work has enabled communities to lockdown in the first place. If this was addressed, the capacity to maintain lockdowns would be expanded, yet at a certain point key sectors of the economy - those necessary for sustaining lives - would also be disrupted. Luckily, no one has ever suggested permanent lockdowns. Instead, governments have advocated for lockdowns of sufficient length to suppress the virus to levels that enable us to protect lives and health.<br />
<br /><b>
Mental Health<br /></b>
A major argument against lockdowns has been that they contribute to community <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/more-than-40-nsw-children-and-teenagers-rushed-to-hospital-for-self-harm-every-day-20210827-p58mg7.html" target="_blank">mental health concerns</a>. There is no doubt that lockdowns are tough; loneliness and isolation are significant predictors of mental health problems and lockdowns are often very lonely experiences. In addition to these commonly shared impacts, many people are experiencing additional stressors. These include the constant threat of infection; concerns around income loss and the cost of living; relationship stress arising from home confinement; and supporting and caring for children with little to no understanding of the restrictions’ purpose or necessity<br />
<br />
However, much of the media discourse around mental health feels disingenuous, many commentators seem to believe that lockdown is the only cause of the current strain on the mental health system and that it’s lifting the only solution. Such commentators conveniently ignore the range of support mechanisms that could be further deployed to support community mental health. Furthermore, their constant depictions of lockdowns as wrong and corrosive are demoralising and may negatively impact people’s ability to cope and persevere. Lifting the lockdowns in the context of widespread community transmission is a recipe for mass infections and large scale death - <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/2021/sep/03/is-there-a-mental-health-crisis-what-australian-data-reveals-about-impact-of-covid-lockdowns" target="_blank">both of which would devastate communities</a>, particularly when the people dying are your loved ones. Too often media discourse around the psychological impact of lockdowns is nothing more than a cynical exercise aimed at building pressure for opening up, with little or no consideration for people’s actual mental health. <br />
<br /><b>
Debate in epidemiology</b><br />
From the beginning of the pandemic, there have been notable discrepancies in the advice being given by epidemiologists regarding the preventative measures that should be applied to minimise the spread of COVID-19. To an extent, these differences should come as no surprise; COVID is a novel virus and it took time for the mechanisms via which it spreads to be fully understood. Furthermore, with professional reputations at stake, it is unsurprising that many experts have doubled down on their own position or attacked the conflicting opinions of their colleagues. The additional seduction of building a media profile by publicly endorsing or criticising government position(s) has not helped matters either. Nonetheless, a much bigger debate has unfolded within epidemiology throughout the crisis. This debate centres on how and when to make judgements about the adoption of various preventative public health mechanisms. On the one hand, epidemiologists from the “medical-based evidence” camp have resisted adopting measures without conclusive evidence that supports their value or efficacy. These experts argue that the potential cost of such mechanisms far outweigh any benefits - benefits which they say are at best unproven and at worst, nonexistent. On the other hand, were the epidemiologists who argued that, in the context of a major global public health crisis, it was neither possible nor prudent to simply wait for the evidence to come in. For these epidemiologists, adopting measures such as masks and social distancing was essential because their potential to curb infection risk far outweighed any potential costs, most of which were financial. This debate has occurred publicly, most noticeably in the <i><a href="https://bostonreview.net/search/node/epidemiology" target="_blank">Boston Review</a></i>, but also in the exponential increase of opinion pieces and media interviews with epidemiologists regarding not only what actions work, but also what level of effectiveness is worth the social and economic cost. Early in the Pandemic, in response to statements by Bill Gates that “<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2003762" target="_blank">COVID was a once in a lifetime pandemic</a>”, Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis wondered if the coronavirus pandemic might rather be a “<a href="https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/" target="_blank">once-in-a-century evidence fiasco</a>.” <br />
<br />
I’m not in a position to judge the scientific merits of the modelling, but it is important to recognise that these judgements are not purely objective, but informed by subjective judgements regarding how we ought to weigh threats to life against the economic impacts of policy options. I personally stand by the idea that preserving human life and health is where we need to place our priorities - not only because saving lives is the whole point, but also because of the harmful impacts mass illness and death have on people’s livelihoods and the economy at large. Those who prioritise the economy at the expense of human life are not only lacking in empathy but have an unaccounted for, built-in error in their calculations.<br />
<br /><b>
Vaccinations: are they a magic bullet?<br /></b>
Since the emergence of viable vaccinations for COVID - public discourse has shifted towards the idea that the way to deal with the virus is to focus on mass vaccinations and that a vaccinated population would effectively eliminate the need for lockdowns. This argument has a number of flaws. First, reaching mass vaccination has been slow. This is understandable, since achieving mass production of vaccines takes time. In particular, the mNRA vaccines such as Pfizer and Moderna are essentially new technologies, meaning that whole <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/mrna-covid-19-vaccines-are-fast-to-make-but-hard-to-scale-11614776401" target="_blank">new production and supply chains</a> have had to be created from scratch.<br />
<br />
Related shortages in production have contributed to and exacerbated the uneven distribution of vaccines globally. This is not just devastating for those populations left unvaccinated and who are left more vulnerable to infection and death; the mass transition also creates much better conditions for the mutation of the virus and is associated with the development of new strains, some of which may be more infectious, more deadly and/or more resistant to available vaccines. For this reason, it is essential that overcoming global inequalities in vaccine distribution becomes a priority for all rich countries, including Australia - not just as an act of solidarity (though this should be the primary driver) but also as an act of self-preservation.<br />
<br />
In addition to the problem of vaccine inequality and the associated risk of new and increasingly deadly strains, much of the discourse around vaccination has overstated the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing infection, illness, and transmission between and among populations. While the effectiveness of vaccines is uneven, no vaccine for any illness delivers these outcomes. This disjuncture between promise and reality has thus lent undue credence to bad-faith actors, expanding and legitimising opposition to vaccinations and lockdown. Opponents, therefore, argue (or at the very least imply) that inaction is preferred to measures that cannot guarantee a 100 per cent success rate.<br />
<br />
Still, the reality that mass vaccinations will not eliminate the virus has done little to impede the proliferation of media commentary linking mass vaccination to “opening up”. Instead, it has led to a growth in public discourse about the need to “live with the virus”. Such discourse initially relied on technically true statements that the vaccine would make it less likely for the vaccinated to get infected, to become seriously ill, and to die or infect others. Yet as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/iceland-covid-surge-vaccines/2021/08/14/bdd88d04-fabd-11eb-911c-524bc8b68f17_story.html">concerning levels of infections</a> continue to be recorded in countries with much higher vaccination rates, the rhetoric from a section of capital, political parties/leadership and the media have attempted to normalise infections and COVID-related deaths, arguing that these are acceptable price pay for ending “unsustainable lockdowns”. This push has, in many cases, been heavily reliant on modelling by researchers at the <a href="https://www.doherty.edu.au/uploads/content_doc/DohertyModelling_NationalPlan_and_Addendum_20210810.pdf" target="_blank">Doherty Institute</a> whose research has informed the <a href="https://www.doherty.edu.au/uploads/content_doc/DohertyModelling_NationalPlan_and_Addendum_20210810.pdf" target="_blank">National Plan to transition Australia’s Covid response</a>. What is clear is that this modelling is inadequate, but also that even the most optimistic projections include much higher levels of infection and death than Australia's previous strategy ever contemplated. Moreover, it is also clear that many of the assumptions which underlie this more optimistic projection, such as effective test, track and isolation mechanisms do not currently exist. Australians are thus being softened up for precisely the horrors seen in other countries - horrors which our collective sacrifice of lockdowns was aimed at avoiding.<br />
<br />
This pressure is not new. It has been at play in Australia since the start of the pandemic. The idea that the economy should be prioritised over life - a position that was resisted not only by unions, but sections of capital, and most importantly some of the state and territory governments - most notably Victoria, WA, and Queensland - has drawn persistent attacks from large sections of capital, the media, and the LNP. This is despite the complete failure of their preferred model. Thus these ongoing attacks are not only bad in terms of their intent or potential outcome but are divisive and demoralising, sapping people’s reserve of endurance and tolerance. Lockdown is hard enough without constant reminders that it is too hard, unnecessary, or the supposed fever dream of a crazed dictator. While those who think lockdowns are horrible but necessary are unfairly denounced as mindless cultists, such discourse continues to create fertile ground for the conspiracy theories being actively spread by the far-right. <br />
<br /><b>
Human Rights</b><br />
Questions surrounding the implications of lockdown measures for human rights, including the most appropriate means for convincing people to adhere to public health measures have also been a constant topic of debate. There is no doubt that the impact of lockdowns has been uneven, with race and class location significantly impacting certain populations' experience of not just lockdown but also some of the more repressive measures deployed by governments in the name of public health. For this reason, there need to be not only more and better resources allocated to support those in lockdown, but also increased accountability and scrutiny of the actions of the police. Having said this, focusing on the rights of individuals to not be impacted by the state ignores the intent and positive consequences that such health measures have on reducing infection rates. Protection from potentially life-threatening and debilitating illness is also a significant human right and in weighing these two rights we need to form a judgement about where to place our emphasis. In this respect, I am firmly in favour of preventing loss of life and promoting health. Public health orders play an important role in achieving this goal, and in order for them to be meaningful, there need to be consequences for breaching them - consequences which also must be appropriate, proportionate, and consistent in their application.<br />
<br /><b>
Pressure on public health</b><br />
Part of the discussion regarding the response to’ COVID-19 has focused on pre-existing problems in public health systems, both in Australia and across the globe. These critiques point to the impact that <a href="https://jacobinmag.com/2021/08/lockdown-australia-coronavirus-delta-variant-neoliberalism-public-health-care-system?fbclid=IwAR2VlCZNZTOsPunfxVE9IQKPg-gp5YG2EmubEKkoM-epgMgxe5xJTr1cezs" target="_blank">decades of underfunding</a> have had on public health systems as part of the neoliberal transformation of our societies. This transformation has effectively reduced both the available staffing in frontline and support roles and the number of available beds. It has also meant that, despite long-standing concerns regarding the risk of an emergent pandemic, little was done to prepare for it. These are important critiques. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that even in the most ideal situation COVID, with its high level of infectiousness and increased risks of hospitalisation and long term complications, would have been a challenge. This can be seen that globally, despite the different capacities of health systems globally, as well as the different suites of policy responses have had varying degrees of horrific outcomes with a few notable exceptions.<br />
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAvAfkRII0b1mbl6oED1tg0NbkrxbPRl-y2AH2M5Eiiyj-uCIOSmg1jOMeRrcoESlgaKyy6eRzL2RbJXomVk9whm1pOg1fbPjlEz9b7bdLbNuMgNg9xXcIO56kriOXyz_ZQ3dn5WVzMno/s843/vic+joint+union+statement.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="843" data-original-width="843" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAvAfkRII0b1mbl6oED1tg0NbkrxbPRl-y2AH2M5Eiiyj-uCIOSmg1jOMeRrcoESlgaKyy6eRzL2RbJXomVk9whm1pOg1fbPjlEz9b7bdLbNuMgNg9xXcIO56kriOXyz_ZQ3dn5WVzMno/w320-h320/vic+joint+union+statement.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /><b>
Concerns about lifting lockdown restrictions prematurely<br /></b>
This concern is based on the fact that there is only a narrow margin for error and getting the timing and details wrong would put significant pressure on the country’s already strained health care systems. The reality is that while decisions about how hospital beds are used can be made quickly, simply designating additional beds for ICU or ventilation isn’t sufficient. In order to make these arrangements work, hospitals need additional qualified and trained staff - and those staff simply don’t exist. The Victorian health unions went further on September 17 released a <a href="https://vahpa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/patients-more-important.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2FTrMN9Pu3QTIwoIOqA4MkdR_ly5264RI_xUGoUEHTSka4oKnwibVvtsE" target="_blank">joint statement</a> which included: <blockquote>‘‘This has been a long, tough and incredibly stressful 18 months for healthcare workers. The impact on their mental and physical wellbeing has been huge. We need the Premier to hold the line and maintain strong public health measures to help keep the pressure on the hospitals and the healthcare workers as low as possible. We must stop counting bed capacity and start looking at healthcare worker capacity, both mental and physical. Healthcare workers are at breaking point. You have no health system without health professionals to run it”.</blockquote>So, what are we to do? It is true the current lockdown will eventually need to end. However, the question of when and how must be contested. While rates of community transmission remain high you can’t substantially weaken the provisions without also substantially increasing the level of vaccination rates in the community. Even at this point, the measures need to account for and seek to protect those sections of the community that are unable to be vaccinated. This means that most of the social distancing and PPE measures that have been in place for the virus will need to be retained, at least at some level, for the foreseeable future. Finally, we should not accept the idea of a permanent end to lockdowns. In the event that infections rise again, we must continue to look to lockdowns as an option to protect people and to safeguard health care systems which, if overwhelmed, would exacerbate the possibility of further (and otherwise preventable) loss of life.<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><div style="text-align: left;">1 <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">As a disclaimer, it is important to acknowledge that, like the vast majority of commentators in Australia, I am not an epidemiologist. As such I will not attempt to interpret models or do my own modelling, instead, I seek to simply explore issues that I feel are being overlooked in the current discussion.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div><span>This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
</div></div></span>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-89546534844312568342021-08-31T16:09:00.005+08:002021-09-01T09:07:50.581+08:00Endurance Games: Reassessing the mass strike based on recent experiences in France<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCmIDOhY1hclMJq8Exhzjz5mDIvlGUNjuFvafO_TqvAbFmHyZ1FTFWuTyg9qZ5XulN_LSzCbSx1EwlJGFdyrAAJD0SMvzW-PhFkwEaUP7EaNVR77jE2sRL_emxPTG4pUrrOw9_wVlERtE/s1328/8f78ec1_5426466-01-06.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="880" data-original-width="1328" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCmIDOhY1hclMJq8Exhzjz5mDIvlGUNjuFvafO_TqvAbFmHyZ1FTFWuTyg9qZ5XulN_LSzCbSx1EwlJGFdyrAAJD0SMvzW-PhFkwEaUP7EaNVR77jE2sRL_emxPTG4pUrrOw9_wVlERtE/s320/8f78ec1_5426466-01-06.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Joint worker and student protest against the First Employment Contract in Rennes April 4 2006</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div>
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
Dwindling rates of industrial action - particularly in advanced capitalist countries- are often cited as evidence of the labour movement’s global decline. Yet the value of industrial action, and particularly mass strikes, are often grossly oversimplified. ‘If we strike, we will win’ may galvanise workers temporarily, but it belies the complex nature of social movements, where a willingness to struggle is only part of the formula necessary for victory. The complexity of this reality can be seen in the experiences of the contemporary French labour movement. In comparison to movements in other advanced capitalist countries, the French movement is often seen as incredibly militant and powerful. Yet, since the global financial crisis in 2008, it has suffered a series of defeats and has found it increasingly difficult to mobilise to the same extent as before. This is not to say that the French movement is any less heroic than it was in the past, but that the balance of class forces and the confidence of the French popular classes has declined. This has exposed limitations in the mass strike as an industrial tactic when it is not paired with a broader perspective of victory; winning requires not only mass involvement but also a determination to maintain struggle at times in the face of defeat. <br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost"><b>
The Mass Strike<br /></b>
One of the most influential works on strikes is The Mass Strike, the Political Party
and the Trade Unions written by Rosa Luxemburg in 1906[1]. She sought to explore the experiences of Russia's failed 1905 revolution and draw lessons for the broader European social democratic movement. Prior to the pamphlet’s publication, social democracy had been highly critical of mass strikes, seeing them as an anarchist fantasy, as Luxemburg put it <br /><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">“the theory of the general strike as a means of inaugurating the social revolution, in contradistinction to the daily political struggle of the working-class – and exhausts itself in the following simple dilemma: either the proletariat as a whole are not yet in possession of the powerful organisation and financial resources required, in which case they cannot carry through the general strike; or they are already sufficiently well organised, in which case they do not need the general strike”[2]<br /></span></blockquote>
Contrary to this view Luxemburg argued:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">“the mass strike in Russia has been realised not as means of evading the political struggle of the working-class, and especially of parliamentarism, not as a means of jumping suddenly into the social revolution by means of a theatrical coup, but as a means, firstly, of creating for the proletariat the conditions of the daily political struggle and especially of parliamentarism. The revolutionary struggle in Russia, in which mass strikes are the most important weapon, is, by the working people, and above all by the proletariat, conducted for those political rights and conditions whose necessity and importance in the struggle for the emancipation of the working-class”[3].<br /></span></blockquote>
<br />
The subsequent role of mass strike movements in creating legitimation crises for the capitalist class, blunting their offensive, and creating the impetus for revolutions has vindicated Luxemburg’s position[4]. At the same time mass strikes, like other tactics, have their limitations and even large mass strikes, as demonstrated by Russia in 1905, do not guarantee the successful achievement of a movement’s objectives.<br />
<br />
The recent movements in France in defence of pensions and against labour market reforms are important experiences in demonstrating both the strengths and weaknesses of the mass strike as a political tactic.<br />
<br />
Leading into the global financial crisis the French working class had achieved a series of victories against government attacks. Most notably: </span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span>the strike wave against attacks on the public sector attacks in 1995 </span></li><li><span>the movement leading up to the defeat of the referendum on endorsing the Lisbon treaty in 2005; and</span></li><li><span>the mass movement lead by students against the contrat première embauche (First Employment Contact - CPE) legislation in 2006[5]</span></li></ul><span>
<br />
At the same time the French organised left was in a process of breakdown and realignment. The Parti Communiste Francais (PCF) , once the hegemonic force on the French left saw its vote in presidential elections fall from 15.35% % in 1981 to 3.37% in 2002. As its old red-belt strongholds became locations of strength for the Front Nationale. deindustrialisation under successive Parti Socialiste (PS) -with the PCF as a minority partner- shattered France’s traditional heavy industrial areas[7]. The impact on the working class in these areas was devastating. Consequently, the PCF’s parliamentary representation became increasingly dependent on a non-aggression pact with the PS, who did not run candidates against sitting PCF MPs. This dependent relationship between the PCF and the PS was to become a key point of conflict in discussions regarding joint far-left candidates, with the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire (LCR) and subsequently the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste setting down a priori independence from the PS as a key basis for any discussions about united left electoral tickets[8]. <br />
<br />
It was not just the PCF who was negatively impacted; the PS suffered the indignity of running third in the 2002 presidential elections behind Jacques Chirac and Front Nationale’s (National Front - FN) Jean-Marie Le Pen[9]. Whilst some blamed this embarrassment on the shock results of the Trotskyist LCR (4.25%) and Lutte Ouvrière (5.72%) candidates, it still posed the question of why people weren’t voting for the PS. It also failed to explain why workers were voting for small far-left parties instead, or even abstaining from voting at all. This put the left in the position of having to respond to a presidential run-off between the right and the far-right - an unenviable position which was repeated in 2017 with the runoff between Macron and Marine Le Pen.<br />
<br /><b>
2009 Post GFC Movement </b><br />
Triggered by the mass defaulting of subprime mortgages in the US economy and exacerbated by the failure of the mortgage backed securities which underwrote the loans, the GFC of 2007-2008 spread like an infection through the global financial sector. Yet as governments scrambled to bailout high finance, they also sought to shift the cost onto working people.[10] <br />
<br />
In France this response was met with mass resistance. The intersyndicale (an informal alliance of union confederations at a national level) called for mass mobilisations against the policies of Sarkozy and the Fillon government. Their demands included:
Increases in the minimum wage and payments to the unemployed and pensioners;
Increased social spending on public housing;
Action to reduce job losses including bans on redundancies at profitable companies;
Reversal of the tax cuts given to the rich at the start of the crisis;
Reversal of job losses and restructuring of the public sector[11]<br />
<br />
The intersyndicale achieved a series of mass mobilisations throughout 2009, the largest of which was the general strike of March 19 which drew over 3 million people[12]. Despite these mobilisations the coalition was unable to force any real concessions from the government and, as they progressed, the mobilisations lost impetus. <br />
<br />
This development was not a surprise to all the union leaderships. One of France’s most militant union confederations, the openly anti-capitalist Solidaires, consistently argued for a need to go beyond individual days of mobilisation. Solidaires predicted that, however successful, individual days of mobilisation alone would not be enough to steer the government from its well-worn course of protecting capital at the expense of working people. Instead, Solidaires argued for the need to build towards a renewable general strike[13]. As evidence of the effectiveness of this approach they pointed to the successful strikes by workers in the French colonies of Martinique and Guadeloupe from January to March of that year. Although Solidaires leadership did concede under pressure from other unions that capacity for such action did not exist, they argued that the work still needed to be done. Affirming the movement’s need and capacity to mobilise on both a mass and ongoing basis would be more productive than simply acknowledging and accepting its inadequacies, they felt[14]. <br />
<br />
As 2009 continued the movement declined. By 13 June the once three million-strong movement had plummeted to a mere 150, 000 and was essentially over, having achieved very little in the way of concessions. At the same time, the state was preparing a new wave of attacks on working people, this time in the form of an assault on France’s pension system.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiC3-WP6jWVglkPgRd1LzJkIQPcAfLBbhySQrHjcnNeiXTcYhCaff8SsLicCMJEItw75cW6v6Kp2HffLJPxQjDLSDoVuLsHcOyHwuBMBk1XxNNN3G9Kd2yXrj1eSXplAb_6jUJbR7Vdv8/s947/retraites.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="550" data-original-width="947" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiC3-WP6jWVglkPgRd1LzJkIQPcAfLBbhySQrHjcnNeiXTcYhCaff8SsLicCMJEItw75cW6v6Kp2HffLJPxQjDLSDoVuLsHcOyHwuBMBk1XxNNN3G9Kd2yXrj1eSXplAb_6jUJbR7Vdv8/s320/retraites.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Joint mobilisation against the attack on France's Pension System 2010</span></td></tr></tbody></table>
<b><br /></b></span></div><div><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"></div><b>2010 Pension Struggle</b><br />
In early 2010, the Fillon government announced that it was seeking to change France’s pension system. The proposed changes included raising the retirement age and increasing workers’ contributions to the social security scheme - effectively requiring workers to work more hours over a greater duration of their lifetimes. <br />
<br />
In the wake of this announcement, the Intersyndicale resumed meeting in earnest. Their concerns were well-founded. Though Fillon’s attack on the pension system threatened to disadvantage all workers, its impacts would be felt most acutely by women, significantly reducing the number of women expected to qualify for a full pension and exacerbating the problem of French women retiring into poverty. <br />
<br />
From the outset, the unions were divided in their view of the objectives of the movement. The class-struggle unions (combat syndicales), whose membership includes Solidaires (Solidarity), Force Ouvrière (Workers Force - FO), and large sections of both the Federation Syndicale Unitaire (FSU) and Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) wanted the proposals to be totally withdrawn. The more conservative unions, most notably the Confédération française démocratique du travail (French Confederation of Democratic Workers - CFDT) and Confédération Française des Travailleurs Chrétiens (French Confederation of Christian Workers - CFTC) were more conciliatory, seeking greater consultation with the government regarding the changes. Yet despite these differences, there was eventually a basis for a common united movement involving France’s eight main union confederations and federations - although the early movement involved just five[15].<br />
<br />
Initially, the 2010 movement was far smaller than the previous years with the March protests reaching only 800, 000 nationally. These disappointing numbers inevitably gave rise to commentary that the defeat of 2009 had undermined the mobilising capacity of the movement. However, as the year progressed the movement began to grow and the pace of mobilisations increased. By 24 June mobilisations had reached 1.92 million. Numbers continued to grow as the legislation worked its way through France’s legislative processes in September and October. Ultimately, there were seven mobilisations, all exceeding two million people and peaking at 3.5 million. However, the total number of people involved in the movement is likely to have been far greater[16].<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xegq9h" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;" target="_blank"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="591" data-original-width="1045" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgGSRGy-S9fBvv82snX0VCz9fYcrZlCcAAYk5vuMz_-cVXlvxEDrIonUR3X4nD9zFmlW5CCK33THGUEdWtjiJ5fbhsycQ9a3ncb9xnV00Jxl70k0RaZI3v-27AI2egl40o9IVQJ96nFqw/s320/solidaires+video.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Solidaires Adverstisment calling for a genderal strike on September 9, 2010</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
</span></div><div><span>Significantly, in a number of industries the days of mobilisation were linked by strike action. Initially these renewable strikes began in France’s oil refineries - triggered by a struggle around Total’s plans to close its Dunkirk refinery[17]. Yet the movement also spread to other sectors. This spread was facilitated, in part, by a decision within the intersyndicale to allow industrial action in workplaces, and at the municipal level, to be initiated by general assemblies of workers at those levels. This meant that, in those sectors and regions where the more militant unions had greater influence, they were able to link protracted strikes to the mobilisations, which were then called and supported by all unions between the punctuating mass mobilisations. Under France’s Labour Code and constitution, if one union in a workplace issues a strike notice then any worker can participate regardless of their union affiliation. While there were a number of spaces where renewable strikes were in effect, the most important of these was in the oil refineries whose closure massively disrupted fuel supplies across France[18].<br />
<br />
Despite the size and escalating character of the movement the government pushed ahead with passing the legislation. In the wake of the passing of the legislation in November, there was one more joint mass mobilisation on November 23. The interior ministry estimated the protests size at 52, 000 and the unions did not announce a size estimate. This small mobilisation indicated that the movement had effectively collapsed. The more conservative unions withdrew from the campaign on the promise that the legislation, whose impact was not immediate but delayed, could be defeated via the election of a PS government in 2012.Those workers who remained on strike - most notably the oil refinery workers - became increasingly isolated as the movement collapsed. In Marseille, a city controlled by the PS, municipal workers were forced back to work using legislation introduced by the de Vilipin government the year before[19]. This legislation, which guaranteed minimum essential services during strikes, was anti-worker by design and undermined a number localised strikes that were holding out against the collapse of the broader movement <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUIz5IRZLYHrbWRnMHzWtQY29p8W8hP6Pmsksf4MKAedzfUxjuK74c7Xw3U0HMZ1ZZisPl21oZlzpukpno5v78J7vgBlqrGSgDs-AFW0SwCBWPt3zKZNmDi52laBUw6HU2WcDVQq8JXZg/s450/18marsMarseille2.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUIz5IRZLYHrbWRnMHzWtQY29p8W8hP6Pmsksf4MKAedzfUxjuK74c7Xw3U0HMZ1ZZisPl21oZlzpukpno5v78J7vgBlqrGSgDs-AFW0SwCBWPt3zKZNmDi52laBUw6HU2WcDVQq8JXZg/s320/18marsMarseille2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Mobilisation in Marseille March 18, 2006</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><b>
Movement against the First Employment Contract<br /></b>
In 2006, the de Villipin government had sought to introduce the CPE, a change in France’s employment laws which would have weakened the rights of workers under the age of 26, including allowing employers to dismiss young workers aged between 18-26 without notice or reason during their first two years of employment[20]. By targeting just younger workers, the de Villepin government hoped that by focusing on one section of the workforce they could divide and limit any potential opposition movement. <br />
<br />
Initially this was the case, as there was limited united resistance by the union confederations[21]. However, despite the lack of leadership from workers’ unions, high school and university students, primarily organised via the Union Nationale des Étudiants de France (National Union of Students of France), Fédération indépendante et démocratique lycéenne (Independent and Democratic High School Federation), and the Union Nationale Lycéenne (National Union of Secondary Students) began their own mass mobilisations - shutting down schools and universities and driving mass mobilisations of students. These student mobilisations gave impetus for militants within the union confederations to push to support the student protests[22]. Between the rising peaks of mass mobilisations, student pursued a broader goal of disrupting the economy via their own collective actions and concentrated on building alliances with workers to support and exacerbate the disruption. By March 2006, 68 of France’s 89 universities were either occupied or on strike with many high schools across France barricaded shut by striking students[24]. More spectacular were the student occupations of rail lines or the successful blocking of Airbus airliners being transported from manufacturing plants[25]. <br />
<br />
As inspiring as the movement was, it was not significantly bigger or more disruptive than the 2010 movement. What really differentiated the 2006 movement against the CPE from the 2010 movement to defend pensions was that when the CPE was passed, the movement continued. In passing the legislation in 2006, the de Villepin government gambled that passing of the legislation would dissipate the movement and remove the threat to French state and capital[26]. When the movement continued despite the legislation passing the threat effectively expanded with no hope that it would decline in the short-term. In response to the movement’s determination, the government retreated and the legislation, despite passing, became a dead letter[27]. <br />
<br />
The lesson to be drawn from comparing the events of 2006 and 2010 is not that mass movements are no longer capable of winning, or that strikes are no longer crucial to achieving victory in industrial and political struggles. It is instead that these struggles are ultimately battles of will and endurance. What changed between 2006 and 2010 was not the capacity of the movement to mobilise- indeed the 2010 movement was arguably larger in size than the 2006 mobilisations. No, what differed between them was the determination of the ruling class to persist with their attacks on working people and, even more crucially, the ability in 2006 of the more radical sections of the movement, most notably the student unions, to cohere and mobilise after the passing of the legislation. It is not sufficient for our movements to be massive or powerful. In order to be victorious,the will and determination of workers must be strong enough to outlast that of capital and its governments. Escalating and disruptive action is thus most effective when deployed as a means of undermining capital’s confidence and endurance. The continuation of the mass movement of 2006 and consequent disruption of the economy cast the gamble made by the right to push forward with legislation as a grievous error, creating the fear that the movement would not stop. By contrast in 2010, the government’s bet proved correct, the movement did collapse and the state and capital could both be confident not only to maintain that round of attacks but contemplate and implant further attacks on working people.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
1 Luxemburg, R. 1906. The mass strike, the political party, and the trade unions. <i>Marxist Internet <br />Archive</i>. <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/">https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/</a>.<br />
2 ibid.<br />
3 ibid.<br />
4 Haug, F., Wilde, F., and Heidenreich, F. 2018. “Mass strike.” <i>Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung</i>. <a href="https://www.rosalux.de/publikation/id/43671/mass-strike?cHash=4dc514bc263b77a899f91e9878b10683">https://www.rosalux.de/publikation/id/43671/mass-strike?cHash=4dc514bc263b77a899f91e9878b10683</a>.<br />
5 Cézard, Yann. 2020. “1995-2003-2010: lessons from three large-scale mobilizations.” <i>International Viewpoint</i>. <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article6347">https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article6347</a>.<br /> Carasso, L. 2005. “E After the success of the "no from the left."” <i>International Viewpoint</i>. <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article845">https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article845</a>.<br /> Carasso, L. 2006. “A major social and solitical crisis.” <i>International Viewpoint</i>. <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1070">https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1070</a>. <br />
6 Amable, B. and Palombarini, S. 2021. <i>The last neoliberal: Macron and the origins of France's political crisis</i>. London: Verso.<br />
7 Jacobin. 2016. “When the workers were communists.” <i>Jacobin</i>. <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/when-the-workers-were-communists/">https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/when-the-workers-were-communists/</a>.<br />
8 Perez, Benito. 2007. “The presidential campaign is rotting French political life.” <i>International Viewpoint</i>. <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1214">https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1214</a>.<br /> Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire. 2007. “For the foundation of a new anti-capitalist party.” <i>International Viewpoint</i>. <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1290">https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1290</a>.<br /> Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire. 2008. “Address for a new anticapitalist party.” <i>International Viewpoint</i>. <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1422">https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1422</a>.<br />
9 Henley, J. 2002. “French poll result seen as catastrophe.” <i>DAWN</i>. <a href="https://www.dawn.com/news/29700/french-poll-result-seen-as-catastrophe">https://www.dawn.com/news/29700/french-poll-result-seen-as-catastrophe</a>.<br />
10 Mirowski, P. 2014. <i>Never let a serious crisis go to waste: How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown</i>. London: Verso. <br />
11 Latham, L. 2009a. “French unions ready for a general strike on March 19.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/03/french-unions-ready-for-general-strike.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/03/french-unions-ready-for-general-strike.html</a>.<br />
12 Latham, L. 2009b. “French unions plan campaign against financial crisis Following 3 Million strong general strike.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/03/french-union-plan-campaign-following-3.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/03/french-union-plan-campaign-following-3.html</a>. <br />
13 National Burea of the Trade Union Solidaires. 2009. “Together let us make the assessment - To be stronger tomorrow.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/09/solidaires-assessment-of-french.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/09/solidaires-assessment-of-french.html</a>.<br />
14 ibid.<br />
15 Latham, L. 2010a. “Thousands of French workers march to defend pensions.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/03/thousands-of-french-workers-march-to.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/03/thousands-of-french-workers-march-to.html</a>.<br />
16 ibid<br />
Latham, L. 2010b. “French workers mobilise to defend pensions.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/06/french-workers-mobilise-to-defend.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/06/french-workers-mobilise-to-defend.html</a>.<br />
Latham, L. 2010c. “Millions of workers march to defend pensions in France.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/09/millions-of-workers-march-to-defend.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/09/millions-of-workers-march-to-defend.html</a>.<br />
Latham, L. 2010d. “French workers fight back against pension attack.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/french-workers-fight-back-against.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/french-workers-fight-back-against.html</a>.<br />
Trade Union Solidaires. 2010. “Solidaires - Pensions: Win by our determination!” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/solidaires-pensions-win-by-our.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/solidaires-pensions-win-by-our.html</a>.<br />
17 Latham, L. 2010e. “French Senate votes to raise retirement age as unions prepare for a day of strikes.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/french-senate-votes-to-raise-retirement.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/french-senate-votes-to-raise-retirement.html</a>.<br />
18 Andrews, W. and Vandoorne, S. 2010. “Fuel imports into France surge as protests imperil transportation.” <i>CNN</i>. <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/18/france.strikes.shortage/index.html">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/18/france.strikes.shortage/index.html</a>.<br />
19 Latham, L. 2010f. “France: Sarkozy enacts pensions law as mass mobilisations continue.” <i>Revitalising Labour</i>. <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/11/france-sarkozy-enacts-pensions-law-as.html">https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/11/france-sarkozy-enacts-pensions-law-as.html</a>.<br /> Smith, M. 2010. “France: Not victorious, but not defeated.” <i>Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal</i>. <a href="http://links.org.au/node/2034">http://links.org.au/node/2034</a>.<br />
20 Steven. 2006. “The French movement against the CPE, 2006.” <i>libcom</i>. <a href="https://libcom.org/blog/short-history-cpe-protests-france">https://libcom.org/blog/short-history-cpe-protests-france</a>. <br />
21 Cézard op cit.<br />
22 Cézard op cit. <br /> Steven op cit<br /> Périn, M. 2006. “Inside the occupation movement: ‘Together we are recreating our university.’” <i>Socialist Worker</i>, March 18, 2006. <a href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/8300/Inside+the+occupation+movement%3A+Together+we+are+recreating+our+university">https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/8300/Inside+the+occupation+movement%3A+Together+we+are+recreating+our+university</a>.<br />
23 Smith, M. 2006a. “Student movement puts government on the defensive.” <i>International Viewpoint</i>. <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article996">https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article996</a>.<br />
Wolfreys, J. 2006. “Daniel Bensaïd: ‘This movement is directly based on a social question.’” <i>Socialist Worker</i>. <a href="https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/8364/Daniel+Bensa%C3%AFd%3A+This+movement+is+directly+based+on+a+social+question">https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/8364/Daniel+Bensa%C3%AFd%3A+This+movement+is+directly+based+on+a+social+question</a>.<br />
24 Duthu, M. 2006. “French workers and youth unite against the First Employment Contract: No to all precarious contracts.” <i>In Defence of Marxism</i>. <a href="https://www.marxist.com/french-workers-youth-unite160306.htm">https://www.marxist.com/french-workers-youth-unite160306.htm</a>.<br />
Smith, M. 2006b. “Anti-labour law movement enters key stage.” <i>International Viewpoint</i>. <a href="https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1000">https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1000</a>.<br />
25 Chrisafis, A. 2006. “Chirac backs down and scraps youth job law.” <i>The Guardian</i>, April 11, 2006. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/11/france.angeliquechrisafis. <br />
26 ibid.<br /> Cézard op cit.<br /> Steven op cit.<br />
27 Cézard op cit. <br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
</div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-14981445835597232212021-08-24T16:46:00.009+08:002021-08-28T09:34:13.185+08:00Misplaced Sympathies: Anti-Lockdown Protests Undermine Social Solidarity<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaZTmot7O_igolagmD6SnlfNad7ZlfjHJkt6ONi8NfcurhHcqUZeYrDAc_cOoH4ujD0xNvk71TLpvrvkNfTfgVcGkj_-62N9XRpCv_K6k6wqeSgao8b49x-KIO3oLYDno9_V81n2AxZEI/s795/Melbourne-protest.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="447" data-original-width="795" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaZTmot7O_igolagmD6SnlfNad7ZlfjHJkt6ONi8NfcurhHcqUZeYrDAc_cOoH4ujD0xNvk71TLpvrvkNfTfgVcGkj_-62N9XRpCv_K6k6wqeSgao8b49x-KIO3oLYDno9_V81n2AxZEI/s320/Melbourne-protest.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
As more Australians enter lockdown in response to the spread of COVID-19 there has been an associated rise in protests against lockdowns and other public health measures designed to curb the spread of the virus. These protests are not a new phenomenon but have been occurring since the beginning of the pandemic. Although initially condemned, in Australia at least, there are now attempts to paint these protests in a sympathetic light or even as somehow progressive. According to these commentators, the protests, although misguided, are really a response to the state’s failure to deliver sufficient support to working people. Yet while financial hardship may be a motivating factor for some participants, remedying financial stress is by no means the objective of these rallies. Instead, the protests rely heavily on militant individualism and opposition to state limitations on behavior which are justified by appealing to a range of interlocking conspiracies that question the reality of the pandemic and the motivations for the various state responses to it.<br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpOwzdGPr622ZDPdBOGkTVt-sMr6SAtD9BxgNpOT54PB89EH2ErAOU0TEOGL3MS4dOYzebdDNzW6Kxl4OexMloVqqJe8Lg9bp91fxYP5xdF9wwWZUtSOeXnCOZC50reBZC2oJsReZROrs/s320/its+the+vibe.gif" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpOwzdGPr622ZDPdBOGkTVt-sMr6SAtD9BxgNpOT54PB89EH2ErAOU0TEOGL3MS4dOYzebdDNzW6Kxl4OexMloVqqJe8Lg9bp91fxYP5xdF9wwWZUtSOeXnCOZC50reBZC2oJsReZROrs/s320/its+the+vibe.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
In most countries, the early protests against lockdown and other public health measures aimed at limiting the spread of COVID. This was particularly aimed at the compulsory wearing of masks and the limiting of movement. The right-wing character was made clear not just by the groups pushing heavily within this framework - such as in the US militias, and other far-right currents such as the Proud Boys, and various Christian patriot groups, but the language that was used to justify and legitimise refusal to comply. These were heavily drawn from highly individualistic, right-wing libertarian sources, such as sovereign citizenship etc. which apart from denying the right of states to govern rely heavily on completely nonsensical quotes of non-existent legal arguments regarding the Magna Carta and other historical and totally irrelevant documents. These mobilisations were often also pushed by sections of capital who did not want to forfeit their right to make a profit at the cost of saving lives. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghy1ZTVoDPxjXudUB3IRXZGHE7bViZO7jHVXNzrTj0j4wQRcgMtqj1dCead3GTX2ewNIwSXxT51OkP5DsXtikEeijBpFOZY_LTUsA7ZEBzYwECWa1cqZiUbFErTjB-KctXxf4IIXloRjM/s753/IMG_0984+%25282%2529.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="212" data-original-width="753" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghy1ZTVoDPxjXudUB3IRXZGHE7bViZO7jHVXNzrTj0j4wQRcgMtqj1dCead3GTX2ewNIwSXxT51OkP5DsXtikEeijBpFOZY_LTUsA7ZEBzYwECWa1cqZiUbFErTjB-KctXxf4IIXloRjM/s320/IMG_0984+%25282%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">One of the numerous anti-lockdown advertisements published by Clive Palmer in major Australian newspapers.</span></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
</span><div><span>In July of this year, the protests in Australia were bigger than earlier protests. This has lead to some on the left searching for a basis for this growth, the answer that a number have come to the conclusion that the driver is the shift in the level of financial support provided by the government to workers in lockdown and as such the protests are really, to paraphrase Marx, the sigh of the oppressed. While there is some appeal in being able to explain the growth in the protests as simply the growth in anger at financial difficulties brought on by the pandemic, you do need to be able to establish more than a correlation to demonstrate causation particularly if we are not descending into vulgar forms of materialism and accelerationism. However, the advocates for a position that this is a prime driver provide limited if any evidence. <a href="https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-side-of-lockdown-protests,15358" target="_blank">Tom Tanuki</a>, in an article in the <i>Independent Australian</i>, whilst acknowledging that it is:<br /><blockquote>“a ’big tent’ conspiracist movement that houses discordant ideas and sometimes leaderless factions. It’s given direction by a ruling caste of portrait-video-filming figureheads who often scrap with each other for viral supremacy. The attention-seekers among them get a sugar rush of shares, the grifters get lots of money and the political careerists try to craft a future voting bloc.” </blockquote>Despite this Tanuki plays down the significance of this reality and instead posits the movement, at least in Sydney, as “left” based on the participation of the working-class and sections of the Lebanese community from Sydney’s South West - however, no evidence is provided to support any of these claims. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/27/who-behind-australia-anti-covid-lockdown-protest-march-rallies-sydney-melbourne-far-right-and-german-conspiracy-groups-driving-protests" target="_blank">Christopher Knaus and Michael McGowan</a> writing in the <i>Guardian</i> outline the global far-right network that has been seeking to build the anti-lockdown movement globally and notes that at least some of the organisers in Australia are embedded in these global far-right networks. However, Knaus and McGowan also cite Josh Roose, a senior research fellow specialising in extremism at Deakin University, as suggesting:<br /><blockquote>“While there were elements of far-right rhetoric among the protestors, what they actually shared was a level of marginalisation and distrust in authority.<br />
“There are some similarities and commonalities to the far right in terms of content but these protests are not driven by the far-right per se,<br />
“What immediately distinguishes these sorts of protest groups from the far right is that they’re highly multicultural and they’re made up not just of angry men at a patriot rally but also women.<br />
“In both Melbourne and Sydney the people and areas being represented are the areas that have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. There’s also issues here with the cultures and communities often have a deep-seated distrust of government, often for good reason.”<br />
</blockquote>Again no evidence is provided to support either the observation or the conclusion. The idea that the presence of workers, people of colour, or women, may not fit with some people’s stereotypes of the far-right, but all of these identities are heterogeneous and historically they have all been sources of recruitment, particularly amongst more marginalised sections of communities, for the far-right even if our image of the far-right are young white men. <br />
<br />
In questioning this argument I am not saying that financial hardship is not a factor. There would undoubtedly be people at the protest who have suffered financially - moreover, there are many people experiencing severe financial hardship due to the inadequacy of state and Commonwealth financial support. For some, this experience may have been a driver for their participation. Whether it is a driver of mobilisations, we should be raising demands not only to increase the level of financial support to workers, the self-employed, those reliant on welfare payments, and small business. Such financial support policies need to be consistent and locked in to provide greater certainty for people in the coming months. Our demands need to go beyond simply demanding the reinstating JobKeeper, and the COVID support supplement, but addressing the significant flaws in JobKeeper, many of which were entirely by the design of the Morrison government and for the COVID support supplement to be incorporated into all government pensions. <br />
<br />
In saying this, I am also saying those advocating that financial hardship as the primary driver, or even a significant driver, need evidence that is the case. For me, a key basis for judging motivations of mobilisations are the public justifications for the mobilisations and the demands raised spontaneously within the participants. On this, the evidence does not suggest that seeking to address financial hardship is a key driver. It does not feature highly in the calls to action or with the homemade signs. Instead, we see calls for “freedom” and around the need for an end to lockdowns and other social distancing mechanisms, such as masks, and rejections of vaccines - which are core issues of this movement since its initial development.<br />
<br />
Also, the growth and development of the movement internationally while not uniform, suggests it is growing irrespective of the financial and social distancing regulations which are actually in place in any given city or country. So rallies have occurred in cities without lockdown or provisions such as compulsory masking in place, although in these cities the protests tend to be smaller - which you would expect as the perceived threat is not present.<br />
<br />
This does beg the question as to why there has been a growth in the anti-lockdown movement? Well, I don’t think it is for a singular reason. One factor is that there has been significant disinformation spread regarding both the virus and the various mitigation measures, including masks and vaccines. This is highlighted by the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/01/sky-news-australia-banned-from-youtube-for-seven-days-over-covid-misinformation" target="_blank">recent seven-day suspension of <i>Sky News Australia</i> from YouTube over the spreading of Covid misinformation</a>. As the distress of lockdown and other limits on movement have built, it is understandable that some people who are experiencing extreme emotional distress would find the idea that that distress is both unnecessary but also can be ended simply by ending lockdowns. This is particularly the case in a country such as Australia where the health impact of COVID has been more limited - it is easier to imagine proceeding as normal without the fear that infections could explode to the levels experienced in other countries. This is contributed to discussions in both mainstream media and on social which talks about the Australian experience without contextualising it in the global context: at the same time the discussion also tends to discuss the Australian governmental response as far more repressive and restrictive than other states - this is particularly notable in discussions of Australia’s border policy as being unique in closing and limiting travel in and out of the country - which a review of sites such as the International Air Transport Association’s <a href="https://www.iatatravelcentre.com/world.php" target="_blank"><i>COVID-19 Travel Regulations Map</i></a> - it is clear that Australia is not alone in having travel restrictions in place, nor does it currently have the harshest restrictions internationally.<br />
<br />
Even in countries where infections and deaths have been much higher, most of the experience has been isolated to sections of the community particularly health care workers, and those who have experienced close family and friends become extremely sick and die. This is reflected in experiences in a number of countries of hospitals being targeted by anti-lockdown/COVID sceptical individuals as being part of a big lie to justify incursions on civil liberties.<br />
<br />
The problem with identifying the drivers of protests is that they are not singular. However, it is clear that the process of the pandemic and associated public health measures have been extremely distressing for the vast majority of society. This is not a real shock, particularly when we consider the lack of certainty faced by many individuals, will they have work, will they be able to go see friends, will they be able to see family or travel. Uncertainty is highly stressful. It makes us feel anxious and that we have no power, or ability to control our own lives. It should be no surprise that psychological distress would help to create a fertile medium for conspiracy theories and anti-science denial to grow and take root. These ideas provide certainty, against a reality of a virus that might kill you and your loved ones - a counter reality where there is no virus and the restrictions are simply part of a conspiracy by the powerful to control us, can be appealing on many levels. That detachment from reality would not necessarily be a problem if it weren’t for the reality that rejecting the public measures increases the risk of exposure of everyone to a highly infectious virus that not only kills but causes long-term health problems in many of those who catch it. <br />
<br />
<b><i>These dynamics can only get worse as the emotional wear of the pandemic builds.</i></b><br />
<br />
So what is the answer? While we must always come from a position of empathy, and understand that many participants in the protests are coming in situations of significant and understandable distress - I don’t think that empathy should let us fall into a position of accepting their arguments and motivations as being legitimate. These actions are aimed at undermining measures that protect public health - whilst people should not be treated with excessive or unreasonable force - the protests do need to be limited and prevented as they are aimed at disrupting the limits on social distancing needed to suppress the virus and save the lives and health of the broader community. Our efforts to maintain support for public health measures need to be premised on social solidarity and the idea that through some individual pain it is possible to reduce the severity of the impact on any individual - which means that the pain does need to be shared across the community - the idea of locking down working-class communities and communities of colour in order to enable rich suburbs to go on as if nothing is happening is unconscionable and reasonably erodes the idea that we are trying to protect everyone.<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
</div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-34785598539895417582021-08-21T12:34:00.004+08:002022-12-14T17:44:13.410+08:00Did the Accord Cause Australian Neoliberalism?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0P7jS9EzMKWUVl8GsGIVh0X-n5R1piZIJJteIUMjZr5E6OCoAyW_Bee3FoQszWwFywLrcP3ZTZ6RDbzxOJtX8j9B8pwHz2BhA3il_OkmoVpJuTkb84pA9xpxK7KCqGCINyL0BFYRYIVs/s275/hawke+and+keating.jpg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0P7jS9EzMKWUVl8GsGIVh0X-n5R1piZIJJteIUMjZr5E6OCoAyW_Bee3FoQszWwFywLrcP3ZTZ6RDbzxOJtX8j9B8pwHz2BhA3il_OkmoVpJuTkb84pA9xpxK7KCqGCINyL0BFYRYIVs/s320/hawke+and+keating.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bob Hawke and Paul Keating key architects of Australian Neoliberalism</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div>
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
Reading the publications of the Australian far-left has seen a sharp rise in the discussion of the Prices and Wages Accord and attempts to relate that experience to the contemporary Australian union movement’s attempts to respond to the double crisis of the COVID pandemic and the associated financial crisis[1]. While there is much to be criticised in the Accord experience - these left critiques tend to see the Accord as a singular process, rather than the complex dynamic interaction with the unfolding not only of the Accord itself but the broader dynamics of Australian political and economic life in the period of the 1980s and 1990s. Many of these left critiques oversimplify and overplay the level of the intentionality of the leaderships of the labour movement in the implementation of the Accord and posit it as the key mechanism by which neoliberalism was established within Australian society. In this article, I aim to outline: <div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>the circumstances that the labour movement found itself in that lead to the Accord project; </li><li>the changing character of the Accord over the period of its implementation; </li><li>the internal processes of control and discipline within the labour movement to enable the Accord to be implemented and maintained and the impact of these on democracy within the labour movement; </li><li>the impact of the Accord on working people; and </li><li>the impact of the Accord experience on the capacity of the Union movement to organise and respond to attacks from the state and capital.</li></ul>
<span id="fullpost"><b>Inflation and unemployment crisis</b><br />
In the early 1980s the Australian economy, like other advanced capitalist economies, entered into recession. The Fraser government responded to the recession by seeking to impose wage restraint by using the centralised wage-fixing system to cut real wages. In 1981, in response, unions, most notably the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union (AMWSU)[2], launched a campaign to achieve a 35-hour week with no loss in pay - in order to maintain workers’ buying power and to create jobs by reducing working hours. This campaign was partially successful, the AMWSU, operating outside the arbitration system, won a pay rise of $20 per week and a reduction in the working week to 38-hours per week in 1981, with a further pay rise to be paid in the second increase of $14 in 1982, based on projected inflation for the next six months. These gains were based on a basis of the union agreeing to no further claims for twelve months[3]. <br />
<br />
In the wake of this victory, the crisis in the Australian economy deepened as the global economic crisis intensified driving down demand for consumer and capital goods. This downturn had already begun to be felt in Australia before the wage campaign, but the AMWSU had been protected from it initially due to residual demand for skilled workers. <br />
<br />
In response to the crisis, manufacturing employers started to rapidly shed jobs, and about 90,000 workers were sacked. In the face of this assault, the AMWSU’s leaders abided by the “no-strike” agreements and did not take industrial action to try to protect jobs. At some shops, workers tried to secure jobs by agreeing to reduce their hours to a four-day week at four days’ wages[4].<br />
<br />
This experience is now raised by the right as demonstrating the inevitable consequence of workers achieving wage rises [5]. Whilst, that conclusion is deeply wrong, and a fundamental misreading of the situation, this experience gave greater weight to the position adopted by the ALP in 1979 supporting the creation of an agreement with the union movement aimed at maintaining living standards that avoid either a wage breakout or hyperinflation[6]. The impetus for this position within the ALP had come from the period of hyperinflation during the Whitlam government (1972-1975). This was particularly the case within the AMWSU and other unions where members of the Communist Party of Australia were part of the leadership[7].<br />
<br /><b>
Stated objectives of the Accord<br /></b>
The initial objective of the Accord was to reduce unemployment and to hold inflation in check. This would be achieved by limiting inflation by restraining wages, while at the same time improving the standard of living of working people by boosting the “social wage” via expansion of government spending particularly around healthcare (Medicare), increased family payments and childcare. A major flaw of the Accord process was that whilst the system had mechanisms that effectively restrained wages, via a centralised wage-fixing system, there were no such restraints on capital regarding the setting of prices, leaving the system open to companies covering any rise in their costs via increasing prices, or just deciding to do so to boost profits. This limitation meant that understandably groups of workers, if not whole unions, were motivated to break out of the Accord in order to defend wages[8]<br />
<br /><b>
Control and discipline<br /></b>
The process of entering the Accord sparked immediate resistance within the labour movement. Most notably this was reflected in individual far-left individuals and organisations opposing the proposal. The Socialist Party of Australia (SPA)[9], which had a number of members who were elected officials in unions, most notably the Building Workers Industrial Union{10], Waterside Workers Federation, Seamen’s Union, and the Firemen and Deckhands' Union of New South Wales[11], publicly opposed the Accord and sought to direct their members who were union officials to oppose the Accord. These members revolted against the direction, arguing that it represented an attack on union democracy, splitting away to form the Association of Communist Unity (while some officials were expelled by the SPA for their refusal to follow party discipline, others simply resigned)12. While there are a range of reasons for this refusal to abide by party discipline, one factor was undoubtedly the reliance of these officials to their collaboration and alliances with officials from the CPA and the Labor left who supported the Accord. Brown has argued that these internal processes of control and discipline impacted on individual officials who had second thoughts regarding the Accord who could expect to be disendorsed and excluded from internal tickets if they did not tow the pro-Accord line[13]. <br />
<br />
Efforts to tie the movement to the Accord only intensified as the process continued. The Accord was posed as a necessary protection against the threat to the movement by the “new right” - in the form of the members of the Institute of Public Affairs and the HR Nicholls Society. This meant that those unions which sought to break from the Accord, were not just seen as revolting from the Accord, but risking the protection that the Accord was seen as offering the movement. So those unions that did revolt, such as the Confectionary workers[14], Builders Labourers Federation[15], and the Airline Pilots, not only faced aggressive and hostile employers, which included deregistration processes, strike-breaking, and the initiation of civil damages suits, but also were isolated, vilified, and raided by their “comrades” in rest of the union movement, including the Hawke Labour Government. Most notable was the deregistration of the BLF in the ACT, in NSW, and in Victoria[16]. <br />
<br /><b>
How the Accord changed over the course of the process </b></span></div><div><span>As much as it is tempting to discuss the Accord as a singular process, it changed considerably over the course of the 13 years it was in effect - with eight different Accords negotiated (although Accord Mark VIII was never actually implemented)[17]. Whilst the early Accords had wage-fixing aimed at addressing specific macroeconomic issues, such as inflation and unemployment, Accord Mark III, in 1987, introduced the concept of two-tier wage rises - with all workers automatically receiving the first tier of wage increases, and the second tier only being received subject to improvements in structural efficiency[18]. This shift both resulted in extremely uneven timing of when the second wage-rise was received, it marked a significant shift in the conceptualisation of the basis on which wage increases would occur, that they should be tied to demonstrated productivity increases beginning a process of Award restructuring.<br />
<br />
As the Accord proceeded, a major justification for the need to maintain the Accord process, was to both hold off the introduction of enterprise bargaining (which was seen as a project of the new right) and to maintain the ALP government to prevent anti-union attacks that had been implemented by conservative governments globally – Peetz as argued that one of the major achievements of the Accord was precisely this delay. However, with the introduction of the Accord Mark VII in 1991, enterprise bargaining, that is negotiations on a company by company basis, rather than industry-wide arbitration and conciliation, was introduced[19]. While bargaining had always occurred within the Australian Industrial Relations system this process had always had a complex and integral relationship with the centralised systems around the Award System. The 1991 process, enshrined in the Industrial Relations Act, began to unravel this relationship. A process which has been deepened with the 1996 Workplace Relations Act, 2005 WorkChoices Act, and the 2008 Fair Work Act. Historically improvements achieved by militant unions in their better organised and more industrially strategic “hot shops”, most notably the AMWU, at the enterprise level could be leveraged and incorporated into the Awards via the state and federal industrial commissions. Enterprise bargaining began a process of severing this connection - which meant that militant unions and their members could only bargain for themselves in their local workplaces (albeit they have attempted to work around this via pattern bargaining which is now legally banned), rather than their actions to improve conditions serving as pacesetters for the conditions of all workers reinforcing individualism and breaking social solidarity between workers, which is such a central drive of the neoliberal project[20]. This process led to a tiering of working conditions based on the extent to which workers had access to enterprise bargaining, with those works reliant on the awards not only falling substantially behind on wages but in their broader working conditions through a combination of the successive award stripping by the Howard government and the achievements by workers and their unions within the EA system in adding and improving conditions. <br />
<br />
Peetz has argued that the Accord process provided important protections to Australian unions in delaying conservative governments and their full-frontal assault on unions in Australia similar to what occurred in New Zealand as a consequence of the Bolger government’s attacks[21]. It is also arguable that the Accord process rather than protecting unions instead left them more vulnerable to the attacks when they came[22]. Whilst comparisons can be made to New Zealand and the devastation wreaked on the labour movement. A counter comparison can be made to the experience of the French labour movement which via ongoing resistance, including splits within the labour movement over responding to attacks by employers and governments[23]. This response meant that while the French movement, like the working class globally over the past forty years, suffered defeats in the wake of government attacks it was able to limit these defeats. In raising the example of France it is not to say that that course was necessarily open to the Australian movement, or would have been easy to pursue if it was but to make it clear that there are and were always multiple responses to challenges confronting movements, and that accepting one as the only alternative path to disaster can unnecessarily close off other alternative paths which may pose the possibility of a more positive outcome. <br />
<br />
Over the course of the Accord, it delivered less and less on its promised objectives. Whilst there was an expansion in the social wage, real wages declined[24]. This decline was not simply problematic due to the stress it put on households but because real wages only failed to decline further as a consequence of increased productivity, i.e. as a consequence of work intensification and the reduction in broader working conditions - which were at the core of Accord Mark III and all subsequent Accords. This normalisation of wage rises to increases to productivity rather than maintaining and improving living standards is now embedded in what is left of Australia’s wage-fixing system under the Fair Work Act[25].<br />
<br />
These shifts have resulted in a sharp and ongoing shift in the wages share of GDP, which has helped to drive up company profits. While this shift began under the Accord, it is important to recognise that this shift has occurred across advanced capitalist countries as corporations have sought to overcome declining growth and maximise their share of income[26].<br />
<br />
Whilst the adoption of the Accord was contested within the labour movement, and as outlined above it was not a singular experience, its character changed over time. Contrary to some claims within the left, the early phase of the Accord, whilst deeply corporatist, was not neoliberal, in particular, the expansion of the social wage was not a neoliberal project, objectives which could be seen as neoliberal objectives came later in the life of the Accord[27]. Indeed, whilst the solution via collaboration was a break with the historic approaches of many of the communist lead unions, it was not a sharp break from that of many unions, particularly those associated with the right-wing of the ALP and formations to its right, such as the Democratic Labour Party[28]. These more conservative unions had long relied on “friendly” relationships with employers and the state in order to hold their own in demarcation disputes and contests with left unions. Indeed, Peetz argues that it was the ending of these relationships which were the driver of the decline in union membership and power rather than the Accord. Unlike the claims of some on the left, such collaboration is not inherently neoliberal, if anything the experience of neoliberalism globally has been an intensification of hostilities by capital against organised labour. The primary driver of the neoliberal transformation of Australian society was the Hawke and Keating Labor governments[29]. The initial incorporation of neoliberal aspects into the Accord was justified as a necessary defensive response rather than the direct intention of those who proposed and advocated the Accord and its maintenance. While this argument may have been cynical on the part of some of its advocates, it also reflects the extent to which direct advocacy of neoliberalism would have been resisted, even if the movement, like the rest of society, having absorbed neoliberal ideas as a consequence of the hegemonic position neoliberalism[30]. <div><<br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
Footnotes<br />
1 Glanz, D. 2020 ‘Morrison’s ‘Accord 2.0’ talks are a trap for the unions’, <i>Solidarity</i>, [online document] accessed 23 May 2021. <a href="https://www.solidarity.net.au/unions/morrisons-accord-2-0-talks-are-a-trap-for-the-unions/." target="_blank">https://www.solidarity.net.au/unions/morrisons-accord-2-0-talks-are-a-trap-for-the-unions/</a>.<br />
O’Shea, L. 2020 ‘Beware union leaders bearing deals’, <i>Red Flag</i>, [online document] accessed 23 May 2021. <a href="https://redflag.org.au/node/7224" target="_blank">https://redflag.org.au/node/7224</a>.<br />
Boyle, P. 2020 ‘Reject the Coalition’s Accord-style JobMaker’, <i>Green Left Weekly</i>, [online document] accessed 23 May 2021.<a href=" https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/reject-coalitions-accord-style-jobmaker" target="_blank"> https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/reject-coalitions-accord-style-jobmaker</a>.<br />
Knobloch, B (18 October 2020) ‘How Australia’s Labor Movement Helped Build Neoliberalism’, <i>Jacobin</i>, [online document] accessed 23 May 2021. <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/10/australia-labor-party-neoliberalism-accord" target="_blank">https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/10/australia-labor-party-neoliberalism-accord</a>. <br />
2 Now the Metals Division of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union </div><div> Smith, B. A. 2001a ‘Amalgamated Metal Workers & Shipwrights Union (1976 - 1983)’, <i>Australian Trade Union Archives</i>, [online document] accessed 16 May 2021. <a href="https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0053b.htm" target="_blank">https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0053b.htm</a>.<br />
3 Latham, C. ‘Wage rises don't mean job losses’, <i>Green Left Weekly</i>, [online document] accessed 23 May 2021. <a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/wage-rises-dont-mean-job-losses" target="_blank">https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/wage-rises-dont-mean-job-losses</a>.<br />
Wright, C. F. 2014 ‘The Prices and Incomes Accord: Its significance, impact and legacy’, <i>Journal of Industrial Relations</i>, 56(2):264-272. 2014<br />
4 Wright ibid. <br />
Latham ibid.<br />
5 Hewett, J. 2009 ‘Lost lessons of the 100,000 'dead men'’, <i>news.com.au</i>, [online document] accessed 23 May 2021. <a href="https://www.news.com.au/news/lost-lessons-of-the-100000-dead-men/news-story/81ef1b0ee808c0db147562597741559b?sv=927bc14851e593f17f7ed5b4ea4305c9" target="_blank">https://www.news.com.au/news/lost-lessons-of-the-100000-dead-men/news-story/81ef1b0ee808c0db147562597741559b?sv=927bc14851e593f17f7ed5b4ea4305c9</a>.<br />
6 Latham op cit.<br />
7 Strauss, J. 2013 ‘Opposition to the Accord as a social contract’, <i>Labour History</i>, 105:47-62.<br />
8 Wright op cit. <br />
Stilwell, F. 1991 ‘Wages policy and the Accord’, <i>Journal of Australian Political Economy</i>, 28:27-53. <br />
9 Now the Communist Party of Australia, but distinct from the original CPA which was founded in 1920 and dissolved in 1991<br />
10 Now a major component of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining, Maritime, and Energy Union
(CFMMEU). </div><div> Smith, B. A. 2001b ‘Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia (ii) (1962 - 1991)’, <i>Australian Trade Union Archives</i>, [online document] accessed 16 May 2021. <a href="https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0316b.htm" target="_blank">https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0316b.htm</a>.<br />
Holland, P. and Jerrard, M. 2018 ‘Unions have a history of merging – that’s why the new ‘super union’ makes sense’, <i>The Conversation</i>, [online document] accessed 4 June 2021. <a href="https://theconversation.com/unions-have-a-history-of-merging-thats-why-the-new-super-union-makes-sense-93077" target="_blank">https://theconversation.com/unions-have-a-history-of-merging-thats-why-the-new-super-union-makes-sense-93077</a>. <br />11 These unions amalgamated to form the Maritime Union of Australia and are now the Maritime Division of the CFMMEU. </div><div> Smith, B. A. 2001c ‘Maritime Union of Australia (1993 - )’, <i>Australian Trade Union Archives</i>, [online document] accessed 16 May 2021. <a href="https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0595b.htm" target="_blank">https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0595b.htm</a>. <br /> Holland and Jerrard ibid.<br />
12 Bentley, S. 2003 ‘The origins and politics of MUSAA’, <i>Green Left Weekly</i>, [online document] accessed 29 May 2021. <a href="https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/origins-and-politics-musaa" target="_blank">https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/origins-and-politics-musaa</a>.<br />
Strauss op cit. <br />
13 Brown, T. 2004 ‘Silencing dissent to win consent: National training reform in the Accord years’, <i>Labour & Industry</i>, 15(1):33-51.<br />
14 Now part of the Food and Confectionary Division of the AMWU. </div><div> Smith, B. A. 2001d ) ‘Confectionery Workers Union of Australia (1986 - 1992)’, <i>Australian Trade Union Archives</i>, [online document] accessed 16 May 2021. <a href="https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0379b.htm" target="_blank">https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0379b.htm</a>.<br />
15 Now part of the Construction and General Division of the CFMMEU. </div><div> Smith, B. A. 2001e ‘Australian Building Construction Employees Builders Labourers Federation (ii) (1976 - 1986)’, <i>Australian Trade Union Archives</i>, [online document] accessed 16 May 2021. <a href="https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0134b.htm" target="_blank">https://www.atua.org.au/biogs/ALE0134b.htm</a>;</div><div> Holland and Jerrard op cit.<br />
16 Strauss op cit.<br />
17 Stilwell op cit<br />
Wright op cit. <br /> Strauss op cit.<br />
18 Stilwell op cit. <br />
19 Peetz, D. 1998 <i>Unions in a contrary world: The future of the Australian trade union movement</i>, Cambridge University Press: Melbourne. <br />
20 Buchanan, J. Oliver, D. and Briggs C. 2014 ‘Solidarity reconstructed: The impact of the Accord on relations within the Australian union movement’, <i>Journal of Industrial Relations</i>, 56(2):288–307.<br />
21 Peetz op cit.<br />
22 Ewer, P, Hampson, I, Lloyd, C, Rainford, J, Rix, S and Smith, M (1991) <i>Politics and the Accord</i>, Pluto Press: Leichhardt.<br />
23 In 1988, the leadership of Confédération française démocratique du travail (CFDT - French Democratic Confederation of Labour) expelled workplace unions from the Confederation’s federations in health, post, and telecommunications over a series of wildcat strikes that the workplace unions had supported. These expelled workplace unions formed a new federation within Post France and France Telecom, the Solidarity, Unity Democracy PTT - which played a leading role in subsequent mass mobilisations in defence of employment conditions, pensions, and workplace rights within French society over the three decades. Their success led to further splits by the left-wing of CFDT particularly in transport, health, and government services. These make up the core of the Trade Union Solidaires which is one of the most militant and left-wing confederations within the French labour movement. </div><div> Damesin R. and Denis, J.-M. (2005) ‘SUD trade unions: The new organisations trying to conquer the French trade union scene’, <i>Capital & Class</i>, 86:17-37.</div><div> Connolly, H. 2012 ‘Union renewal in France and Hyman’s universal dualism’, <i>Capital & Class</i>,
36(1):117–134.<br />
24 Stilwell op cit.<br />
Wright op cit.<br />
25 McKenzie, M. 2018 ‘The Erosion of Minimum Wage Policy in Australia and Labour’s Shrinking
Share of Total Income’, <i>Journal of Australian Political Economy</i>, 81:52-77.<br />
26 Lapavitsas, C. Kaltenbrunner, A. Labrinidis, G. Lindo, D. Meadway, J. Michell, J. Painceira, J. P. Pires, E. Powell, J. Stenfors, A. Teles, N. and Vatikotis, L. 2012 <i>Crisis in the Eurozone</i>, Verso: London.<br />
27 Humprys, E. 2018 <i>How Labour Built Neoliberalism: Australia’s Accord, the Labour Movement and the Neoliberal Project</i>, Brill: Leiden.<br />
Stilwell op cit.<br />
28 Peetz op cit.<br />
Peetz, D. and Australian National University, Centre for Economic Policy Research 1997 <i>The Accord, compulsory unionism and the paradigm shift in Australian union membership</i>, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University Canberra.<br />
29 Peetz op cit.<br />
Hillier, B. 2020 ‘Sally McManus is a neoliberal’, <i>Red Flag</i>, [online document] accessed 23 May 2021. <a href="" target="_blank">https://redflag.org.au/node/7340</a> <br />
Harvey, D. 2005 <i>A Brief History of Neoliberalism</i>, Oxford University Press: Oxford.<br />
Quiggin, J. 1999 ‘Globalisation, neoliberalism and inequality in Australia’, <i>The Economic and Labour Relations Review</i>, 10(2):240—59.<br />
30 Mirowski, P (2013) <i>Never let a serious crisis go to waste: How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown</i>, Verso: London.<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</div></span>
</div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-46441521479668577022021-08-14T09:03:00.000+08:002021-08-14T09:03:34.808+08:00The limits of Modern Monetary Theory as a solution to neoliberalism<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheJeDKDUCqkhkvbo75_30ZPG6KLu2WoFIVAQ6_pBaT7Y94faYNEP5S_O5x5M08QzerUbLIospQRXyqJ4RDTd1jHxXH8ZHCXbRTpoQKOX4R6I6uYNIFli-Fe1faLW66Tv0KlxPDkbAh6cE/s700/im-359005.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="700" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheJeDKDUCqkhkvbo75_30ZPG6KLu2WoFIVAQ6_pBaT7Y94faYNEP5S_O5x5M08QzerUbLIospQRXyqJ4RDTd1jHxXH8ZHCXbRTpoQKOX4R6I6uYNIFli-Fe1faLW66Tv0KlxPDkbAh6cE/s320/im-359005.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div><br /></div><div>Lisbeth Latham</div>
<br />
The application by some governments of quantitative easing (the printing of more money) in response to both the <a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/modern-monetary-theory-and-mainstream-economics-converging" target="_blank">Global Financial Crisis</a> and the economic crisis unleashed by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trillions-in-coronavirus-spending-is-putting-aocs-favorite-economic-theory-to-the-test-143378" target="_blank">COVID Pandemic</a> has helped to raise interest in the heterodox economics approach of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-17/what-is-modern-monetary-theory/12455806" target="_blank">Modern Monetary Theory</a> (MMT) as the appropriate approach economic development in countries such as Australia. While there are definitely important insights that can be drawn from MMT to inform appropriate budgetary responses, particularly in times of economic crisis, advocates of MMT tend to oversimplify the budgetary problems facing sovereign states during crisis, particularly those states which unlike Australia are not imperialist powers, even if a relatively weak one, and are instead in a dependent position within the global economy, but more importantly, mistakes where the real political struggle around budget priorities exist within the context of neoliberal politics.<br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">
MMT is a heterodox macroeconomic approach that focuses on the role of the government in the creation of money/currency and how, with the ending of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971 and the end of the convertibility of US dollars to gold, governments gained greater freedom in their monetary policy due to not being bound by the need to be able to honour their currency with gold. <br />
<br />
Central to MMT is the idea that <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-modern-monetary-theory-72095#:~:text=Australia%20has%20a%20monetary%20sovereign%20government.&text=The%20Australian%20government%20is%20a,role%20in%20our%20financial%20system." target="_blank">no government which is a sovereign issuer of its own currency can ever go bankrupt as they are able to create more money</a>, and that doing so is preferable to a government borrowing money as it avoids the need to pay interest on such a debt. Some advocates of MMT argue that this glimpse of the true nature of the economy fundamentally unravels the core premise of neoliberal austerity which has seen the deprioritisation of spending public services across the globe. <br />
<br />
However, the reason we have seen aggressive attempts globally to wind back social spending is not that the neoliberals genuinely believe there just isn’t enough money to spend on public services. Instead, neoliberal austerity is driven by a desire to transfer as much of the wealth being produced into the hands of capitalists, a process that is driving unprecedented levels of wealth concentration. Everything else is simply verbiage to prettify and obfuscate this drive to boost and concentrate profits. In this context, the answer of “printing more money” is still the question of “how do you maintain a sufficient level of profit growth to maintain the capitalist system?”. Shifting this priority will take a struggle against capital and its governments, and all too often MMT tends to push its advocates away from this conclusion into a tangential argument about whether there is genuinely a limit to the money supply.<br />
<br />
By shifting the terms of debate to the question of “is there a limit to money”, advocates accept what are really false arguments of capital and their representatives in government as having been given in good faith. While the neoliberal drive has relied heavily on the appearance of a lack of alternative choices, Thatcher’s insistence that “<a href="There%20is%20No%20Alternative" target="_blank">There is No Alternative</a>” being one of the greatest examples, the reality is that in the midst of arguing for the need for surplus budgets, most advanced capitalist countries have happily racked up deficits but at the same time they have been shifting spending priorities, so simply arguing “there are no limits to the spending” is unlikely to address the reality that these governments want to prioritise spending on subsidising business profits rather than on social spending. <br />
<br />
This reality can be seen in the examples which MMT advocates point to as proving their point. For many MMTers the increase in government spending, as if from nowhere, in response to the COVID pandemic and in response to the Global Financial Crisis of the late 2000s, is evidence of the truth and power of MMT as a solution. Whilst this does show that governments can spend more, we need to also recognise that spending has also primarily been focused not on meeting the needs of the general population but on <a href="https://time.com/5845116/coronavirus-bailout-rich-richer/" target="_blank">maintaining company profits and avoiding mass defaults</a> - indeed the US government’s <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/union-joins-automakers-in-pledge-to-make-sacrifices-20081204-6qwd.html" target="_blank">bailout of US automakers was tied to workers accepting cuts in their working conditions</a>. Moreover, this spending has not been sustained, not because it “cannot be”, instead it has <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/coronavirus/government-defends-the-winding-back-of-wage-subsidy/vi-BB1eYnn2" target="_blank">been intentionally wound back</a> and the previous rounds of spending used as a justification of future austerity. This is not to say that the creation of money cannot be a solution to government finances. However, it does highlight that it is necessary to see the questions of how much money the state spends and on what as being primarily political. <br />
<br />
Related to this problem is a tendency of MMT advocates to dismiss the question of taxing the rich as not important, as the government can meet its budgetary needs via money creation, and thus from an <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-policy-and-society/article/modern-monetary-theory-and-the-changing-role-of-tax-in-society/B7A8B0C7C80C8F7E38D20BE4F5099C83" target="_blank">MMT perspective taxation only really plays a role in the currency circulation which can include, if a government so chooses, wealth redistribution via social spending</a>. There are a number of problems with these positions. It tends to detach money from the real economy and part of the reason we are seeing unprecedented levels of market capitalisation and accompanying individual concentrations of wealth, is that money is not circulating and is instead being drawn from the <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2020/09/superwealth-understanding-decoupling-of.html" target="_blank">real economy into speculation in the stock market</a>. More importantly, there is a tendency to reduce the question challenging the concentration of wealth to an at best secondary question - when in reality it should be the primary one of moving to a point of contestation as to who should control the means of production and not just the means of creating money. This problem is highlighted by <a href="https://taxjustice.net/2019/03/05/the-magic-money-tree-from-modern-monetary-theory-to-modern-tax-theory/" target="_blank">John Christensen and Nicholas Shaxson</a> regarding how to respond to the massive tax avoidance highlighted in the <a href="https://taxjustice.net/2017/04/03/panama-papers-big-players/" target="_blank">Panama Papers</a>. “To illustrate this clash, take the words of UK Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell during the Panama Papers tax haven scandal that “every pound avoided in tax by the super-rich is a pound desperately needed by our National Health Service, our schools and our caring services.” We’d strongly agree with this statement — though Bill Mitchell, a prominent MMT economist, <a href="https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/tax-havens-must-be-closed-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/" target="_blank">attacked it as a</a> “dangerous and misguided narrative for progressives to engage in,” because it “fuels damaging myths” about how the tax and spending system works”.<br />
<br />
An easy and ready dismissal of MMT is that its application would simply result in a repetition of the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic in the early 1920s or Zimbabwe in the late 2000s. However, as Mitchell and Fazi point out there were other factors at play here that triggered hyperinflation most notably disruptions in the supply of goods, not simply the creation of additional money, moreover, they point the example of the creation of additional currency during in Germany between 1933 and 1937, which enabled the Nazi government to rebuild the German economy. <br />
<br />
The MMT discussion of the potential risk of inflation, which partly relies on the accurate assertion that creating more money will be no more inflationary than any other stimulus effort such as borrowing more money. They tend to treat the impact of increased money supply in the economy as not just felt via inflationary pressures within a national economy - because most economies are in trade relationships with other economies, changes in volume on money can impact on exchange rates which in turn impacts on trade in those goods being sold internationally will experience a reduction in price on international markets, whilst imported goods will cost more. This can be beneficial to both exporters and manufacturers reliant primarily or exclusively on internal markets - as with the falling value of the currency both become more competitive - if it goes too far it can cause considerable dislocation in the internal economy of a country. <br />
<br />
Moreover, if we accept that hyperinflation is a potential problem, even if not primarily driven by the creation of money, then we have to also recognise that MMT’s focus on money as being the solution to modern problems of the economy - particularly where shortages are caused not by a lack of money, but a lack of goods - which we have begun to see during the COVID pandemic due to dramatic shifts in consumption patterns of certain goods, most notably <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314445/" target="_blank">personal protective equipment</a> and <a href="https://science.thewire.in/health/explained-why-its-hard-to-speed-up-vaccine-production/" target="_blank">vaccines</a>, and as a result of <a href="https://www.ey.com/en_au/supply-chain/how-covid-19-impacted-supply-chains-and-what-comes-next" target="_blank">disruption in manufacturing and supply chains</a> due to the virus and accidents such as the blocking of the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/29/suez-canal-is-moving-but-the-supply-chain-impact-could-last-months.html" target="_blank">Suez Canal in March by the Ever Given</a>. <br />
<br />
In these circumstances simply creating more money or giving more money to people will not solve these supply issues, indeed it will potentially exacerbate the problems and give rise to Inflation at least in part of, if not the whole of the economy. <br />
<br />
While MMT focuses on the ability of governments to simply create money in order to overcome problems with either needing to stimulate the economy or to enable necessary and vital government programmes. These are not the only challenges facing the global economy. Moreover, by articulating an almost evangelical view of having unlocked the secrets of the economy its advocates tend to forget that primarily the issue of spending and consumption in national and international economies are not primarily driven by economics, but instead by politics - with economics being a justifier for political positions.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span>
Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-72770023494097965732021-06-08T15:30:00.003+08:002021-06-08T15:30:00.227+08:00Naked class war will continue post the pandemic, but it is not a break with neoliberalismLisbeth Latham <br />
<br />
The current crisis is sparking significant discussion about policy direction for our societies coming out of the pandemic. Zack Brestin’s <a href="https://irishbroadleft.com/2020/08/11/after-neoliberalism-naked-class-war-aided-by-the-state/" target="_blank">article</a> is an important contribution to that debate. While I agree that neoliberalism has been demonstrated to be a failed system and that we can expect to see an intensification of naked class warfare, however, I think it is a mistake to believe that we will see a break with neoliberalism is mistaken. What we are likely to see, unless working and oppressed people are able to resist it, is a deepening of the logic of neoliberalism rather than a break with it.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br />
Neoliberalism has been the hegemonic economic and political outlook in the world for more than 40 years. However, defining neoliberalism is extremely difficult. This is for a range of reasons:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span id="fullpost">
Its proponents largely deny that it actually exists;</span></li><li>It is so hegemonic that it articulates itself in numerous ways has it has permeated through a range of different political traditions on both the left and the right;</li><li>One of the mechanisms for its hegemonic position is that it subverts and destabilises other outlooks rather than necessarily articulating a consistent position - a primary avenue for this is through what a number of authors have referred to as the neoliberal thought collective.</li></ul>
<br />
Having said this there are a number of features that can be associated with neoliberal positions, these include: <br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span id="fullpost">
Facilitating the free movement of capital by removing barriers to capital investment and shattering trade barriers;</span></li><li>Increasing barriers to the movement of workers, which results in increasingly constrained rights and marginalisation for migrant workers;</li><li>Prying open more aspects of social life for capital investment;</li><li>Reduction in government social spending primarily premised on the justification of the need to rein in deficits;</li><li>Increase in subsidisation of capital either directly or indirectly via the opening government services to capitalist competition;</li></ul>
Unfortunately, all indications are that these features will be deepened in the wake of the current crisis, just like they were in response to the Global Financial Crisis, and just as they have been after every crisis of the neoliberal era. <br />
<br />
Why is this? I think we have to explore two aspects of neoliberalism, the first is that it is a response to the <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2019/07/neoliberalism-is-dead-long-live.html" target="_blank">deep-seated and long-run economic crisis</a> the global capitalist economy caused by the <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2020/07/capitalisms-accumulation-crisis-prompts.html" target="_blank">overaccumulation of capital</a> which has resulted in capital finding it increasingly difficult to profitably invest outside of seeking to commodify all aspects of social life, redirect social spending into boosting profits and via the increasing financialisation and securitisation of the economy. However, these responses can only provide short-term relief to the problems that it is trying to address and has the tendency then to exacerbate the underlying crisis because it has both eliminated existing protections against crisis - such as the serious problem caused in the current pandemic by so many workers having little or no effective sick leave, resulting in workers with symptoms faced with the stark choice of <a href="https://unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2020/june/link-between-migrant-worker-exploitation-and-covid-19-meat-processing-outbreaks-must-be-addressed/" target="_blank">attending work sick</a> (and potentially infecting co-workers and by extension their families) - and that it has spread the direct impact of the economic crisis into more and more parts of the economy. <br />
<br />
In response to both the failure of neoliberalism to avert crisis and the tendency to exacerbate crisis - while you would expect this to result in the death knell of the orientation, has repeatedly in crisis after crisis in the <a href="https://antipodeonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/book-review_meredith-on-mercille-and-murphy.pdf" target="_blank">advocates of neoliberalism successfully enforcing prescriptions of the deepening of neoliberalism in the economy</a>. <br />
<br />
While this may seem both counterintuitive and running against the developments in the current crisis - with many advanced capitalist countries seeing government responses that have included the <a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/service/be74d3-covid-19-pandemic-unemployment-payment/" target="_blank">expansion of welfare payments</a>, <a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/service/578596-covid-19-wage-subsidy/" target="_blank">subsidisation of the payrolls of qualifying companies</a>, and taken over <a href="https://www.imtj.com/news/covid-19-spain-nationalises-private-healthcare/" target="_blank">privatised hospitals to meet the needs of responding to the pandemic</a>. The reality is that many of these actions were taken late and begrudgingly, with many of the neoliberal governments which have introduced these frameworks already <a href="https://www.irishnews.com/business/2020/06/29/news/getting-ready-for-changes-to-the-furlough-scheme-1985722/" target="_blank">rolling back these programs despite the crisis being far from over</a>. Neoliberal spokespeople both within and outside of government arguing that post-pandemic recovery will require a deepening of the <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/articles/no-we-cant-just-print-more-money-during-covid-19/" target="_blank">deregulations of labour markets and privatisation</a>, and the winding back of social spending to pay for the debt built up in responding to the crisis, that is, the shifting of the social cost the crisis onto working people in order to defend and prop up capitalist profits. This push is not inevitable, but resistance by working people in the current period is going to be difficult but as the struggles that are <a href="https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8yMWNmZGU1OC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw&ep=14&episode=YzAwNmQ1ZWYtZWNjOC00ZGE3LTg0ZjgtZjM0NTJhMzgwOTYz" target="_blank">breaking out internationally</a> in response to the crisis, it is possible. <br /><br />
</span><div><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><span><br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a></span> to let me know.</div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-85865462291440422422021-05-12T15:03:00.002+08:002021-11-22T18:22:00.005+08:00Buenos Aires Teachers Strike Against Face-to-Face Teaching During COVID Second Wave<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjebLaoMhd3AQMYEXdE736k-L8vOv9ghjlQ_k4Uh_-dsgqSK4Z_ZjOhdELX0Q3jx8uvcnxc3dOCoWPPtETmGxpLgE3P2raHDivUEaFa40sQenikZ1O37ul2XeVcjcFeb9-aynuRcDfgix0/s900/178998473_2846167858958469_4521815156063747412_n.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="577" data-original-width="900" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjebLaoMhd3AQMYEXdE736k-L8vOv9ghjlQ_k4Uh_-dsgqSK4Z_ZjOhdELX0Q3jx8uvcnxc3dOCoWPPtETmGxpLgE3P2raHDivUEaFa40sQenikZ1O37ul2XeVcjcFeb9-aynuRcDfgix0/s320/178998473_2846167858958469_4521815156063747412_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
Teachers in public schools across Buenos Aires have been on strike since April 19 following a decision by the city government to oppose a ban on face-to-face learning as part of a national lock-down. Education unions argue that the city’s decision, made in the midst of a new COVID outbreak and despite a federal decree to close schools and transition to remote learning, unnecessarily increases the risk of contracting and spreading the disease.<br />
<br /><span id="fullpost">
Since the start of the pandemic, Argentina has been hit hard by the pandemic with almost 3 million people infected and more than 60 thousand deaths. From the outset, there has been ongoing tension between Buenos Aires city government and the federal government over how to respond to the pandemic crisis - with the pro-business Horacio Rodríguez Larreta and his allies opposing policies aimed at limiting the spread of infection but which they, like other neoliberals globally, argued undermined the economy.<br />
<br />
In the wake of the new wave of infections, President Fernandez’s government issued a Decree of Necessity and Urgency which included a national lockdown including the closure of schools until the end of April - on April 30 it was extended until May 21. On announcing the extension of the lockdowns and curfews across the country Fernandez said “The measures against the pandemic are strictly to save lives. The rules we put in place must be complied with equally by all". The lockdown is aimed at limiting new infections which were running at record highs particularly amongst those under 18-years of age. The Buenos Aires municipal government responded with a court case to block the decree in the Buenos Aires metropolitan area - however, the court has not yet made a final decision, however, the city government has attempted to keep public schools in the city open. The opposition Juntos por el Cambio coalition within the federal parliament is also expected to launch their own court challenge against the lockdowns.<br />
<br />
In response education unions in middle and higher education called strikes beginning April 19, with strikes having been renewed as the government has failed to respond. The strikes which have seen 90% of students and teachers not attend for face-to-face classes have been justified by the unions as necessary public health measures to protect not just students and teachers but of the lives of all those in the metropolitan area. With the <i><a href="https://www.ctera.org.ar/" target="_blank">Confederación de Trabajadores de la Educación de la República Argentina</a> (Confederation of Education Workers of the Argentine Republic - Ctera) </i>arguing the strikes are a defence of health and life and are necessary as:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span id="fullpost">
the Buenos Aires health system is close to collapsing because new strains impact children the most.</span></li><li><span id="fullpost">
the Buenos Aires government didn't condition schools to prevent the spread of the virus.</span></li><li><span id="fullpost">
children, IF THEY USE public transportation to go to school this increases the risk of contagion.</span></li><li><span id="fullpost">
Larreta isn't vaccinating teachers and non-teachers to prevent the disease.</span></li><li><span id="fullpost">
in Uruguay, Britain, Chile, Israel, Italy closed schools to reduce cases and it worked.</span></li><li><span id="fullpost">
we want to stop coronavirus from taking more lives.</span></li></ul>
<br />
The strain on Argentina’s health care system is reflected by there being more than 5,300 people currently receiving intensive care for coronavirus complications, COVID patients occupying 68.4 per cent of beds available nationally, and 76.6 per cent in the Buenos Aires metropolitan area.<br />
<br />
In a statement released on May Day, the Ctera said “with masses of teachers, families and students, we have been fighting against the lies and misleading advertisements with which Larreta intends to continue to use education in a political campaign at the expense of the health and lives of the citizens of the City.<br />
<br />
In addition to calling for the municipal government to abide by the closure of schools, the union is also calling for a continuation of the vaccination program, particularly in schools, and for urgent steps to be taken to ensure that all students have access to computers and the internet to allow virtual teaching during the lockdown.<br />
<br />
The statement ended “Despite the pressure and the discounts on our salary, we will carry on convinced that our fight saves lives.”<br />
<br /><i>Ctera is part of <a href="https://ute.org.ar/" target="_blank">Union de trabajadores de la educación</a></i><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>(Union of Education Workers), one of the Argentinian affiliates of <a href="https://www.ei-ie.org/en" target="_blank">Education International</a>. Ctera has established a <a href="https://ute.org.ar/fondo-solidario/" target="_blank">Solidarity Fund in Defence of Health and Life</a> to support striking teachers. <br />
</i><br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-42367998277839476812021-04-04T14:52:00.005+08:002021-04-04T14:52:55.309+08:00France: Workers and students occupy theatres to demand the reopening of the cultural sector<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggTYbR_ZsTcymyqlNxY89kj0KvBpoY3BMQ-BJUgR_6eV3ZieRUMSzxnPxy5UFXEv0mEh_zL2zmYdgW82Z0TcYrb4uDwrkiC-SDRDwvNOqTYExxRgr_xvzTNB5Rnu-7MeW_u-SRstZhsAE/s1280/odeon+occupation.webp" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggTYbR_ZsTcymyqlNxY89kj0KvBpoY3BMQ-BJUgR_6eV3ZieRUMSzxnPxy5UFXEv0mEh_zL2zmYdgW82Z0TcYrb4uDwrkiC-SDRDwvNOqTYExxRgr_xvzTNB5Rnu-7MeW_u-SRstZhsAE/w400-h225/odeon+occupation.webp" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Protest outside the occupied Odeon Theatre</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
On March 4, workers and students within France’s cultural sector began occupying the Theatre Odeon in Paris as part of protests aimed at increasing government support for the sector in the face of the economic impact of the COVID pandemic. Since March 4 the occupations have spread and there are now over theatres across France that have been occupied. The movement is an important development within the French labour movement’s response to the current crisis and follows the central role played by workers at the Paris Opera played during the 2019-2020 movement to defend pensions.<span id="fullpost"><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtu6qWmUcdFl83wpP0i8GPqtiof8Zd4v8_VdXkubgIK_qAdI_N5cS_CGodW1mAE5GefMdvzRtANKNP2xpUaZbCVgJAXX2QE-BqX57i6O2e7vXJ-vGRR6jsQN5mhVXJJV4N7jK2kQMBbaM/s1240/84487c83341dd12eec4048fb49fb6aade88e59c2.jpeg" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="698" data-original-width="1240" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtu6qWmUcdFl83wpP0i8GPqtiof8Zd4v8_VdXkubgIK_qAdI_N5cS_CGodW1mAE5GefMdvzRtANKNP2xpUaZbCVgJAXX2QE-BqX57i6O2e7vXJ-vGRR6jsQN5mhVXJJV4N7jK2kQMBbaM/w400-h225/84487c83341dd12eec4048fb49fb6aade88e59c2.jpeg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Striking Ballerinas perform Swan Lake December 2019</td></tr></tbody></table><br />
</span><div><span>Like in most countries the COVID pandemic has caused considerable disruption to the French economy. In response to the crisis, the French government has sought to support the wages of workers (albeit those workers who have had their hours reduced only have up to 60% of their incomes protected) and the capacity of companies to survive even if they were no longer able to operate - this has included making available government-backed financing. All aid to business is tied to a restriction on these companies not paying either bonuses or dividends for a period they receive the support.<br />
<br />
At the same time as businesses have been supported, France’s cultural sector has been repeatedly ignored and abandoned by the Macron government. While workers have had access to wage subsidies museums and theatres were not initially provided with the same support as other businesses, and despite widespread planning regarding how to safely reopen in the context COVID, have been largely ignored in government planning for reopening following the end of France’s second national lockdown in December, with the exception of bookshops and small private galleries, which have been treated by the government as shops rather than cultural spaces in planning. <br />
<br />
This abandonment of France’s cultural sector. Which has been so central to French identity for the past century. Has caused considerable anger in France not just because of the immediate and potential long term impact on the affected spaces, but also the potential weakening for French culture in face of globalising cultural imperialism emanating particularly from the US. With fears that France’s efforts to protect the French language and cultural products, which itself is part of the French imperialist project in francophone countries that remain from France and Belgium’s former colonial empires, and its cultural and economic hegemony over these neo-colonies. While this tension between the maintenance of French identity and its own cultural imperialism means that the process is not unproblematic the destruction of the French cultural sector would be a significant loss to the diversity of cultural production globally and a disaster for the workers within the French cultural sector. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="322" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P0iuWNNNXHs" width="400" youtube-src-id="P0iuWNNNXHs"></iframe></div><div><span><br /></span></div>
The tensions within this space have been reflected in a number of protests, most notably an impromptu performance by cellist Gautier Capuçon in a supermarket to highlight the difference in restrictions operating in theatres and other spaces as compared to commercial spaces. While these differences can be justified on the basis of what constitutes an “essential service” it also demonstrates significant anger at the abandonment of the cultural sector and its workers. <br />
<br />
On March 4 protests were held across France. In Paris, the protests culminated in the occupation of the Odeon Theatre by workers and students, particularly the General Confederation of Labour’s (CGT) cultural worker federations the Syndicat Français des Artistes Interprètes (French Performers Union - CGT-SFA), Fédération nationale des syndicats du spectacle de l'audiovisuel et de l'action culturelle (National Federation of Audiovisual and Cultural Action Unions - CGT-Spectacle) and Syndicat National des Professionnels du Théâtre et des Activités Culturelles (National Union of Theater and Cultural Activities Professionals - SYNPTAC-CGT). <br />
<br />
On March 4 protests occurred in France calling for the reopening of Cultural Spaces. In Paris, students entered the Odeon Theatre. Since March 4, the occupation movement has spread, by March 14 occupations had spread to 30 cultural buildings across France. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmfT8PC3Qc2nmoU_LqOWqWeA55sOhEkcQgB_gqycErgRBl_uGq4VWbrYiPTRyHTYBnvQhPN6IlOYfRV7cIfGcVYea0-skD-MR8XePbqUDNOECiH9YGBt_bFm1CSf6ANluZLmplngasSzo/s781/occupations+.png" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="781" data-original-width="710" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmfT8PC3Qc2nmoU_LqOWqWeA55sOhEkcQgB_gqycErgRBl_uGq4VWbrYiPTRyHTYBnvQhPN6IlOYfRV7cIfGcVYea0-skD-MR8XePbqUDNOECiH9YGBt_bFm1CSf6ANluZLmplngasSzo/w364-h400/occupations+.png" width="364" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Map of occupied theatres source:<a href="https://twitter.com/OccupationOdeon/status/1371226105349300226/photo/1" target="_blank">@occupationodeon</a></td></tr></tbody></table><br />
</span></div><div><span>In response, Roselyne Bachelat, Minister of Culture, announced that the government announced that it would be making €20 million available to support the cultural sector. However, this package is totally inadequate to meet the challenges facing the sector and is dwarfed by the support provided to companies in other sectors by the government. At the same time, Bachelat has sought to delegitimise the movement, arguing that the occupations posed a physical threat to the buildings - many of which are historic sites. <br />
<br />
The CGT-SFA has rejected these claims issuing a <a href="https://sfa-cgt.fr/news/1964" target="_blank">statement</a> on March 17 stating:<br />
<br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span> “Madame Bachelot, we are not rambunctious children whom you can publicly lecture for what you seem to consider to be a whim on our part. We demand a minimum of respect, even though for many months we, performers, workers in the performing arts, have been considered non-essential to the life of the country. Our struggle, far from giving our jobs a bad image, on the contrary, gives us back our dignity.<br /></span></h3></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span></span><span>
If the actions we are taking disturb you Madame Minister, know that this is precisely the goal we are looking for, and as long as we have not obtained satisfaction with the demands that we are making, we will continue”.</span></h3></blockquote><span>
<br />
Moreover, the occupations have been supported by the managements of the occupied buildings, an example being David Bobée, director of the Théâtre du Nord in Lille, who reported by Radio France Internationale on March 15, as expressing his “complete and total support to this new mobilisation” which he described and an appeal to “revive the performing arts as quickly as possible”. <br />
<br />
The CGT-SFA, SYNPTAC-CGT, CGT-Spectacle and SUD Culture, the cultural worker federation of the Solidaires union confederation, in prosecuting their campaign to reopen cultural buildings not simply by advocating on behalf of cultural workers, but by linking this struggle with the broader efforts in France to opposed attacks by President Macron and the Castex government on the rights of all French workers. <br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span><br /></span></div><div><span>This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="revitalisinglabour@gmail.com" target="_blank">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>
</div></div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-87484925228394188412021-04-02T13:19:00.004+08:002021-04-02T13:19:39.110+08:00How the Neoliberal Thought Collective uses "feminist" language to defend misogynyLisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
Other the past months federal politics has seen the airing of a series of allegations of inappropriate behaviour and outright sexual assault against Morrison government ministers and staffers. These allegations have caused understandable anger amongst wide sections of society, most particularly women - highlighted by the Marchs 4 Justice on March 14 and 15 in numerous cities and towns. In response government ministers and their supporters and defenders in the media have relied on dubious legalistic arguments based on spurious legalism and denials of misogyny. Much of the responses to these defences have tended to see these arguments as reflecting a lack of understanding of concerns and/or poor leadership on the part of Morrison. However, these interpretations tend to make the mistake of seeing the statements and arguments coming from the government and its support networks as being genuine, if ill informed or mistaken. I would argue that instead these arguments are not at all genuine, but are instead of a conscious destablisation and misinformation campaign being conducted by sections of the neoliberal thought collective within Australia to buttress and defend the government and if we are to respond effectively to the current crisis we must accept this reality that significant sections of the media are not good faith actors.<br />
<br /><span id="fullpost">
Capitalism as a system is a highly unstable system, it has a tendency toward crisis and contains within it a significant number of contradictions which further this instability. At the same time, despite predictions of inevitable limits and the possibility of collapse, it has demonstrated itself to be an remarkably resilient and flexible system that has been able to adapt to, absorb, neutralise, and eliminate potential threats. Central aspect to this resilience has been the capacity of capitalism and its supporters/beneficiaries to construct a cultural hegemony in support of the system which works to normalise and integrate, and where necessary, smash threats to the system. Within late capitalism, as neoliberalism has become the hegemonic response to capitalist crisis and contradiction this hegemony, particularly amongst ordinary people, has been increasingly been buttressed by the neoliberal thought collective(s). <br />
<br />
The concept of a neoliberal thought collective, developed by a range of theorists of neoliberalism such as Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe, refers to the networks of neoliberal idealogues and promoters that exist within and move between academia, think tanks, and media. During the early period of neoliberal thought, when it represented a marginal approach seeking to overturn the dominant social democratic and liberal responses to capitalist crisis, served to help spread ideas and promote the legitimacy of neoliberalism as a response to capitalist response - however has it has emerged as the dominant system the NTC not only promotes neoliberal responses to crisis within its own networks and more broadly, but seeks to defend it’s system by destabilising and undermining alternative approaches - most succinctly articulated in Thatcher’s maxim “There Is No Alternative” in this way demonstrating, as Steven Lukes has suggested, that an important aspect power is the ability to limit possible policy options which are available. Central to the approach of the NTC is to deligitimise alternative perspectives and approaches by co-opting and misusing the language and ideas of its opponents, effectively neutralising by creating confusion as to what these positions actually represent and are arguing.<br />
<br />
As mass anger at the allegations against Christian Porter and Liberal staffers - and the acts by the government to protect them rather than hold them to account has increased we have seen a new wave of defences being articulated based a superficially feminist basis - which appears as an apparent break from the attempts at rape apologism and victim initially mobilised by the government and its supporters - most notably Peter van Onselen. This is best reflected in a number of opinion pieces by fairfax columnist Parnell Palme McGuinness titled “Boomer feminism is not what we need at this transformational moment” and “Scott Morrison is not a misogynist, what lacks is a female inner circle” which follow an November 2020 piece “Please, not in the name of feminism:Expose of ministers’ private lives”. In these pieces McGuinness attempts to exploit and mobilise existing divisions within the Australian feminist movement, most notably between older second wave feminists and feminists who have emerged and been influenced by feminisms third and fourth wave.<br />
<br />
The significance of these articles is not the actual arguments contained within them, which are dubious and disingenuous, but they way they have sought to mobilise feminist language in justifying a defence of Porter and Morrison. Whilst these articles have been widely seen as bad articles with weak arguments, in drawing responses and shifting debate onto the their spurious arguments the articles work in both shifting the debate away from what to do about an attorney general who is faces credible allegations of rape and a governmetn which defends him to the validity of McGuinness’s argument and adds to the general divisions which exist within the current movement. <br />
<br />
It is necessary to simply reject outright any attempt to distract from the seriousness of sexual assault within our community and the failures of institutions to address this violence. At the same time it is vital that we recognise that the only way to move the movement forward and achieve real change is to support the mobilisation of survivors and their supporters with the aim of making attempts to ignore the movement and continue as normal are simply impossible.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div><br />
<br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at <a href="mailto:revitalisinglabour@gmail.com">revitalisinglabour@gmail.com</a> to let me know.
</span>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-75498577505821375002021-02-21T08:14:00.000+08:002021-02-21T08:14:32.533+08:00Australia's Media Bargaining Laws and the political economy of digital media<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6VxBAJ_FL2mmu1j1KZasjJdnbgEhLAE9j_PPoXf8u2uCmfWrI0E_J_wnbCZPnCYyIFlJUkhe0hOVI2jrg7rxZBA7YKLSgcUYrWOaHaUx4x2U1RARlWEbVPp1mVIKLBN1Ii__SQbS92ZQ/s300/3477.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6VxBAJ_FL2mmu1j1KZasjJdnbgEhLAE9j_PPoXf8u2uCmfWrI0E_J_wnbCZPnCYyIFlJUkhe0hOVI2jrg7rxZBA7YKLSgcUYrWOaHaUx4x2U1RARlWEbVPp1mVIKLBN1Ii__SQbS92ZQ/s320/3477.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
On February 18, Facebook initiated a block of all Australian news media content being posted to the platform and blocking all Australian accounts viewing news posts globally. The blocking, which resulted in much more than media content and pages being removed from the platform, was in response to the lower house passing the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020. This legislation is aimed at requiring Facebook and Google negotiating with Australian media companies for the presence of their content within Facebook’s timelines or in Google’s search engine. This legislation has been justified on the basis that both of the tech companies are enriching themselves off the sharing of the content produced by companies like NewsCorp and Nine Entertainment, and Seven West Media and that it is this enrichment that is responsible for the parlous state of legacy media companies. However, this justification however does not reflect reality, moreover, the panic and outrage at Facebook’s response underline the real relationship between the organisations. <br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">
Globally legacy media, that is media companies that predate the emergence of digital media technology, have been experiencing significant financial difficulties calling into question their viability - and resulting in repeated waves of rationalisation of journalists, photographers, and sub-editors and a shift to an increasing reliance on freelancers in generating content. <br />
<br />
Historically newspapers and television stations have primarily relied on providing free or subsidised content to consumers. This allowed them to build up audiences, which they sell access to in the form of advertising - it was primarily via advertising sales that they made profits. <br />
<br />
This model was at times disrupted via things such as cable networks which relied entirely on user subscriptions for profits rather than advertising - with the absence of advertising and the exclusive availability of specialist content being the primary selling points. <br />
<br />
With the emergence of the internet, and subsequent innovations of the mechanisms through which content could be delivered over the web this model has broken down. This has been primarily for two reasons - the growth in media dispersed audiences, particularly via old mediums such as newspapers and broadcast TV - reducing the capacity for companies to generate income via the sale of advertising - this has also been a consequence of these companies cannibalising this income themselves by establishing their own competing platforms for advertising services that were traditionally dominated particularly by print media. Secondly, legacy media has struggled with finding effective mechanisms to monetise their online presence in order to replace their historical revenue streams - this has been due to both a reduced ability to generate advertising via website visits and efforts at trying to get consumers to pay for content being uneven - given the diversity of media, particularly news available.<br />
<br />In this context, the Morrison government, with the support of the major Australian media corporations proposed the Media Bargaining Code. These laws: </span><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span>make it unlawful for digital platforms that do not pay up to provide links to Australian news;</span></li><li><span>give big news outlets quasi-monopoly bargaining power
allow deals to be made without the need for authorisation by a regulator concerned about the public interest; </span></li><li><span>provide a regulatory stop-gap should that not happen;</span></li></ul><span>This has been justified on the basis that Facebook and Google generate income from this which is rightfully the media companies. Both Google and Facebook have argued that they don’t directly generate revenue from these mechanisms and that instead, their platforms help to generate income for Australian media companies by providing traffic to their sites which the companies can then seek to monetise that traffic in whatever way they want and are able to.<br />
<br />
One of the key challenges for digital platform companies such as Facebook has how to translate their millions of users into revenue and thus profits. In the early period of Facebook’s existence, when it was seeking investment, it’s value was premised primarily on the notion that it would be able to be monetised, not that it was actually profitable at that time. Indeed Facebook, despite being founded in 2004, did not make a profit until 2008 and it was only with the initial public offering of shares in 2012 that it began to reach its full monetising efforts, which is also the point that some would say it began to decline as a particularly useful social media platform. <br />
<br />
Facebook makes money out of a number of mechanisms - the primary source is the selling its users, all 1.69 billion of them in 2020, to other businesses - this can be in the form of selling user data or selling access to users via advertising and sponsored content - in 2019 it averaged <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/032114/how-facebook-twitter-social-media-make-money-you-twtr-lnkd-fb-goog.aspx" target="_blank">US$8.52 in revenue per individual user</a>. What gives Facebook power is that people use the platform, if that should decline then so would its power, however, like the legacy media, it might still have sufficient residual power to seek to either diversify or invest in those platforms that emerge to compete and challenge it. As social media emerged older media companies sought to invest to protect themselves. News Corporation bought MySpace for US$580 million in 2005 betting that it would be a dominant platform and that it would be able to be monetised, however, it was rapidly outstripped by Facebook and other platforms and is now little more than a punchline to jokes - which News Corp unloaded in 2011 for just US$35 million.<br />
<br />
Facebook’s decision to block news posts from Australia essentially accepted the Morrison government demand that if the news was to be paid for, they would simply stop it from being shared. It was a mechanism by which it could act in the interests of its shareholders by removing the possibility of having to pay companies for the content shared on the platform - making the assumption that this would be more than any loss of income resulting from the blocking of content. Moreover, it was an effective exercise in demonstrating that Facebook needs Australian news content far less than Australian news content needs Facebook. This action caused outrage on two levels the first was that News agencies were outraged - despite Facebook having stopped the practice they were claiming it was making money from rather than paying for said practice - demonstrating that this was primarily about securing money rather than concerns about “theft of content”. The second was that Facebook’s action caught up far more than news, no matter how ill-defined that might be in the legislation, this included the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/facebook-blocks-health-departments-charities-and-its-own-pages-in-botched-australia-news-ban" target="_blank">Bureau of Meteorology, health agencies, and satire sites</a>. While some of the anger at this action was legitimate and justified it was also at times overblown, with claims that Facebook was censoring - there was some merit to this with pages being Facebook pages deleted, but with the limiting of sharing - all of that content still existed and was accessible. The much broader blocks and bans - whether deliberate or the consequence of poor coding the algorithm - did not help Facebook’s PR - but needs to be addressed separately from the question of whether the Media Bargaining Code is a good idea. <br />
<br />
Given that the claims that Facebook generates money from news companies’ content are thin what is the point of the legislation? It appears to be an attempt by the Australian government to redirect revenue from Facebook to struggling Australian legacy media with little real grounds and to the detriment of media diversity, as has been argued by a number of independent media outlets, with <i><a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/02/18/facebook-media-ban-bluff/" target="_blank">Crikey</a>’s</i> Bernard Keane describing the legislation as “an extortion racket at the behest of the Murdochs on the widely reviled big tech companies”. Joshua Gans, writing in <i><a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-versus-australia-the-government-hands-facebook-a-free-pass-155628" target="_blank">The Conversation</a></i>, argued that the Code is deliberately aimed at keeping small media organisations out and handing over money to large media corporations. So what position should we take regarding the laws and Facebook? First, it should be clear that these laws are bad and make very little sense, the justifications are at best ill-conceived and at worst demagogic. Second, while it is understandable that people want to hold Facebook, a large and powerful multinational that pays limited tax in any jurisdiction, accountable. However, this legislation does not do that however - it just gives money to other rich unaccountable companies that also don’t pay taxes in order to boost their profits. <</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Facebook and all other companies should be made to pay taxes, and the loopholes which allow it and other multinationals to avoid tax by using tax havens as their headquarters should be closed. This money should be used to fund public services including journalism through the ABC, SBS, and community radio, even to commercial media but on terms to create jobs and journalism capacity rather than just a sop to corporate profits, however, I would not hold my breath on the Morrison government doing this. We also need to challenge the power of Facebook - the main way to do this is to just stop using it - that is how it generates power - if people stop using the platform it will wither away - just as the legacy media is currently. <br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span>
</div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-48540001482563037102021-02-11T07:55:00.001+08:002022-05-15T16:13:26.529+08:00Tim Wilson's war on Super<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJUlFd7MkQ2s_6qqcaHpgtXf_hJ07N2hRGMk74zAOzEerTppfyCHhGK3KyafjrTmgpeG-Z1knjkdVHTIrSoPlR0UVoQJzYGpWo77NWjo03azHoZ28I3Ab8EqGUoSmukiDci_U_1qPc_ds/s960/1558510672-GettyImages-1086741528-960x540.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJUlFd7MkQ2s_6qqcaHpgtXf_hJ07N2hRGMk74zAOzEerTppfyCHhGK3KyafjrTmgpeG-Z1knjkdVHTIrSoPlR0UVoQJzYGpWo77NWjo03azHoZ28I3Ab8EqGUoSmukiDci_U_1qPc_ds/s320/1558510672-GettyImages-1086741528-960x540.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div>
Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
Tim Wilson, Liberal MP and former Institute of Public Affairs mouthpiece has deepened his campaign to undermine the superannuation system supposedly in the name of supporting homeownership amongst young workers. Reality is that his proposals are unlikely to increase the ability of people to own homes, and even if it did increase buying capacity it is likely to further inflate prices, but instead serve to drive more people into poverty in old age.<br />
<br /><span id="fullpost">
In a February 6 article by Rick Morton in <i><a href="https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/economy/2021/02/06/inside-tim-wilsons-campaign-against-super/161253000011021" target="_blank">The Saturday Paper</a></i>, Wilson argues the following: </span><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span>Workers accessing superannuation during the COVID pandemic was a policy success; </span></li><li><span>The decline in the number of young workers owning their own home is a consequence of the superannuation guarantee; </span></li><li><span>That homeownership will provide greater security in both working life and retirement;
</span></li></ul><span>
As a starting point, super is deeply flawed, it is not the best way of securing a comfortable retirement for all working people. However, Wilson is not looking to address the weaknesses of the current system. Instead, he is cynically trying to use justifiable angst about retirement, particularly in the context of the COVID pandemic, to undermine and weaken the superannuation system, particularly for marginalised workers. <br />
<br />
The Morrison government’s policy of allowing workers facing hardship due to COVID to access their Superannuation balances to meet their needs signaled that the government knew that the financial support it offered people in its stimulus packages was totally inadequate to meet people’s financial obligations. Moreover, the policy allowed people to mortgage their futures to meet the living costs of today. As a consequence, they not only denuded these workers of their retirement savings but undermined the superannuation balances of millions of workers as superannuation funds were forced to liquidate assets, some at a discount, in order to meet the cash demand of people making withdrawals.<br />
<br />
While it is true that superannuation is a deferred pay rise, that deferral long ago occurred and cannot be accounted for in declining wage growth. The Superannuation guarantee increased to 9% from July 1, 2002. It did not increase again until 1 July 2013, when it increased to 9.25%, and then to 9.5% from 1 July 2014. The Abbott government delayed the subsequent increases in the guarantee which had been legislated by the Rudd government, with the next increase not due until July 1 of this year, the guarantee is scheduled to increase by half a per cent each year until it reaches 12 per cent in 2025. In the meantime, the average wage price index has moved from 3.6% in 2004 to 3.7% in 2012 and 1.4% in 2020. This decline is more to do with the increasingly combative outlook of employers eager to maximise the share of productivity growth going to profits rather than wage rises. This more aggressive outlook has been encouraged by successive LNP governments and mirrors patterns across the <a href="https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2020/07/capitalisms-accumulation-crisis-prompts.html" target="_blank">OECD</a>. <br />
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCs8YwCuXwFSUK98bYEUiuHd2FtozKLhC9MBbI9iF0_HYqkq3Kvt_ifHtzEBaMAVRsb14WG2wEFIzlrgm1SkUdy-cDKk5fSKHl7NztXBDlfOQbQGgqPdKrntbgMMLumSM5NhRsSVDIUKY/s1157/wage+price+index.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="643" data-original-width="1157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCs8YwCuXwFSUK98bYEUiuHd2FtozKLhC9MBbI9iF0_HYqkq3Kvt_ifHtzEBaMAVRsb14WG2wEFIzlrgm1SkUdy-cDKk5fSKHl7NztXBDlfOQbQGgqPdKrntbgMMLumSM5NhRsSVDIUKY/s320/wage+price+index.png" width="320" /></a></div><div><span>Source: <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/wage-price-index-australia/latest-release" target="_blank">Wage Price Index</a>, ABS. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div>
Brendan Coates, director of Grattan’s household finance program, in states the article that a 12% superannuation guarantee is more than sufficient for most workers, and thus workers should be able to draw down their super balances each year that exceed 9%. However, this does not hold up against the reality of high levels of poverty in retirement within Australia, with the <a href="https://www.oecd.org/australia/PAG2019-AUS.pdf" target="_blank">OECD</a> finding in 2019 that 25% of those over 65 in Australia living in poverty. The research found that breaks in contributions, in the study this was primarily due to periods of unemployment or parental leave, resulted in significantly worse financial outcomes. Moreover, given that superannuation is based on compounding value - but may decline due to market fluctuations, judging what counts as “in excess of 9%” would be difficult to judge. <br />
<br />
At the same time as wage growth has slowed to record low levels, housing prices have continued to grow. From 2004 to 2020 the average home price in Australia’s eight capital cities has almost doubled, with only a couple of years where prices contracted. Given that wages have not grown anywhere to the same extent, what has been the driver behind this ongoing growth? A major factor has been the availability of historically cheap finance, which is allowing people to borrow much greater amounts compared to their incomes. This creates a real danger that any rise in interest rates could see thousands of homeowners being forced to sell or face foreclosure particularly given that a quarter of all mortgage owners report mortgage stress. In addition, the ongoing growth in house prices has encouraged a significant level of speculation in the housing market, with speculators taking on interest-only loans on the assumption that they will be able to sell the home at a profit prior to any interest rate increases. A final driver of house prices has been successive government policies around negative gearing which allows owners of investment properties to write-off the difference between interest payments and rental income against their income tax. These policies have led to numerous individuals owning multiple “investment properties” and any first home buyers competing with speculators in the marketplace and the driving up of prices but also contributed to increasing rental prices which undermine the ability of renters to save deposits towards their first home. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSqR2efF2aNYcVjIk4vw_FjqviYQAsDIsgaChFy-YCSna_JEb1csI63dMznrKTvqLODypKxldbR7YGSG5X9poPE59opflSRWsFlxOh7c2zoM2d7VtvHyHVnrJMRbW8mbISPa1fqa99Lwk/s1433/proerty+price+index.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="663" data-original-width="1433" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSqR2efF2aNYcVjIk4vw_FjqviYQAsDIsgaChFy-YCSna_JEb1csI63dMznrKTvqLODypKxldbR7YGSG5X9poPE59opflSRWsFlxOh7c2zoM2d7VtvHyHVnrJMRbW8mbISPa1fqa99Lwk/s400/proerty+price+index.png" width="400" /></a></div><div><span>Source: <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/residential-property-price-indexes-eight-capital-cities/latest-release" target="_blank">Residential Property Price Index</a>, ABS</span></div><br />
According to Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, in 2017 the average superannuation balance of workers aged between 30-34 was $43, 593 for men and $33, 748 for women. In most cities, this is insufficient to make up a deposit - in August median house prices in Australian capital cities was $804, 602. Even if you assume you have a couple they would struggle to pull together a full deposit - at the same time they would then need to be able to cover a mortgage - which may or may not be possible based on their combined balances and saving, but they would potentially be left in retirement with a co-owned house (possibly still a mortgage on it) and limited savings. <br />
<br />
Given the distance between Wilson’s proposal and the reality that accessing their super accounts will not make buying a house affordable for most workers, why is Wilson pushing this proposal? While it could simply be a public destabilisation scheme, which both Wilson and the IPA are fond of, it is more likely that it is to help soften up the public for the Morrison government pulling back from the legislated super guarantee increases. Either way, the media should reflect this reality rather than accept the proposals in good faith. Moreover, if they are serious about exploring approaches to provide security in retirement, they should explore solutions that don’t pose it as either a choice of owning a home or retirement savings based on a life of work. Instead, we should be looking at ensuring that everyone has sufficient incomes in retirement. Whilst super may have a role in this, we would be better served by increasing all pension payments to livable levels. Moreover, whilst it is true that owning a home in retirement can provide security and capital - this is primarily due to the cost of rentals. Housing security would be better served by greater government investment in quality housing stock aimed at providing affordable and long-term housing to residents. <br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span>
</div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-44579757932278861582021-02-03T06:47:00.001+08:002021-02-03T08:00:03.362+08:00The GameStop short squeeze and why any market indigestion can be very bad for working peopleLisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
Over the last week social media and the mainstream media has been filled with stories of how Redditors may have bankrupted some hedge funds who had been attempting to short the stock of US games retail company GameStop which had been struggling during 2020 under the dual pressures of the COVID pandemic and the increasing competition from games streaming platforms for market share. Much of the commentary has been a level of schadenfreude at hedge funds being beaten at their own game, which is understandable - however in enjoying the idea that this is ordinary people bringing down mighty capitalists, it is important to understand that the potential impact of the disruption of the shorting of GameStop is potentially much broader than that event, and the impacts will potentially be felt outside the stock market, and if that happens it will be working people who pay the price.<br />
<br />
<span id="fullpost">
The origin of the stock market was a mechanism for raising capital for the establishment and expansion of companies. Companies, in exchange for investment, would offer other capitalists ownership of part of the company (i.e. shares) these could then be traded on the stock market with other capitalists. Originally the main value of shares was that they entitled their owners to a share of future profits - dividends. However as capitalism expanded and the opportunity to invest in profitable expansion of production in the real economy the stock market became an avenue for the investment of excess capital for speculation, but rather than for long-term returns on company profits speculation was based on short-term returns on variation in stock value and the creation of novel financial instruments that could be traded and invested in. For decades the stock market has primarily served as an avenue for such speculation by capitalists who are able to achieve better returns via such speculation than they can via investment in the “real economy”. This reality has been exacerbated in the last year where disruptions in the real economy caused by the COVID pandemic has further disrupted the real economy and there has been more concentrated speculation in stocks seen as either safe bets - such as big tech stocks - or raiding stocks which are seen as vulnerable, as was attempted with GameStop.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz2LyxAoDH2zy_fsCxqeORHFcDYBYVHh-pVDhDpXKINCNY9awXWeXpTo7OWW3X_QjbH1rH809jmXTqVrTQpZObTyCTCaOZ3xJSUpOoGnETGFrtA0kyvBds5RlBg-xfhWSs70PSrzsXcVQ/s772/GME+month+feb+1.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="772" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz2LyxAoDH2zy_fsCxqeORHFcDYBYVHh-pVDhDpXKINCNY9awXWeXpTo7OWW3X_QjbH1rH809jmXTqVrTQpZObTyCTCaOZ3xJSUpOoGnETGFrtA0kyvBds5RlBg-xfhWSs70PSrzsXcVQ/s320/GME+month+feb+1.png" width="320" /></a></div><div><span><br /></span></div>
GameStop had been widely seen as one of a number of legacy stocks whose business had had its day. In late 2020, the value of the shares in a number of bricks and mortar companies such as GameStop, AMC Entertainment (US cinema company), and BB Liquidation (the holding company for the liquidation of BlockBuster). A number of hedge funds predicted this rise would be short term and began to short the stock - they were not quiet about their efforts and more and more funds joined the effort, demonstrating the irrationality of the marketer as the total short position of all the hedge funds accounted for 140% of GameStop stock. <br />
<br />
Shorting is essentially a bet, or speculation, that a financial instrument will decline in value in either immediate or medium/long term. Depending on the type of instrument you want to short you will do it in different ways. With stocks, an investor will “borrow” stocks from another owner with an agreement to return them at a later date. The investor then sells the stock, reaping the full value at their current price on the assumption that when they need to return the stocks they will be able to purchase the stock at a lower price than they sold it at - they reap the profit between the two values - if the stock instead goes higher then they will lose money on their bet. <br />
<br />
In response members of the sub-Reddit WallStreetBets, which regularly coordinates collective short-term investment by small traders, noticed the massive short and proposed an effort to boost the share prices of these three shares using online trading platforms such as RobinHood - as doing so would not just undermine the shorts of the hedge funds but provide an opportunity to also make money as the hedge funds tried to cover their losses.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5jlDbfAAVv49ynpPXHn5gP_0twrMbPiAS7mhjJSEiKrrDyb03pQSIwki8E4_0mt6TRvh9TIjirlbsplJjg0lb4iH6NjbOgzK_f0DhrhE61e0ahYxHpGILJebLOvQEieFQybzkfjP4sRc/s772/GME+5+day+feb+1.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="603" data-original-width="772" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5jlDbfAAVv49ynpPXHn5gP_0twrMbPiAS7mhjJSEiKrrDyb03pQSIwki8E4_0mt6TRvh9TIjirlbsplJjg0lb4iH6NjbOgzK_f0DhrhE61e0ahYxHpGILJebLOvQEieFQybzkfjP4sRc/s320/GME+5+day+feb+1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Between the close of the exchange on Wednesday, January 20 and January 27, the price of Gamestop stock had risen from US$39.12 to US$347.51. A number of the hedge funds had already covered their position by the close of trading on the January - hedge fund Melvin Capital announced they had covered their short position for a loss of US$2.75 billion while Citron Research reported it had covered the majority of their short with a 100% loss of their investment. The need for hedge funds to cover their short position and buy massive volumes of shared was a major factor in the driving up on the share prices, adding to this was other investors seeing an opportunity to make money in the process and buying shares in the hope of selling them again to the hedge funds. <br />
<br />
The response by many to the events around GameStop has been one of joy at the pain being experienced by hedge funds. While this demonstrates understandable hostility to Wall Street and more particularly hedge funds, which are thoroughly parasitic, however, the process has a much wider impact than simply these funds losing money or potentially going bankrupt - this has the potential to spread much further through stock markets and more problematically into the real economy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9dSsV739EZEcMhGheWtF-Tsldk7UE9nDRZVTbBQybcRQNf6SRisX9n-FNbE3zIYOBM0ExqhkxjTaqsjsKgOPtMCYV6Z4nc50i3bBb9STyplRYEGpu4Mrn3DSY57Uw7js9F1_aHGeoffQ/s786/nasdaq+feb+1.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="543" data-original-width="786" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9dSsV739EZEcMhGheWtF-Tsldk7UE9nDRZVTbBQybcRQNf6SRisX9n-FNbE3zIYOBM0ExqhkxjTaqsjsKgOPtMCYV6Z4nc50i3bBb9STyplRYEGpu4Mrn3DSY57Uw7js9F1_aHGeoffQ/s320/nasdaq+feb+1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
It is estimated that hedge funds have lost up to US$5 billion in their short, most companies do not have that level of liquidity, as a result in order to cover these losses they have had to sell other assets to meet their obligations - in a number of situations the shares they have gone long. Offloading large volumes of collateral at short notice can only result in driving down the value of those assets and potentially forcing others, particularly those who are heavily leveraged, to dump their position to avoid the risk of losing money themselves. For this reason, there has been a dramatic increase in the level of volatility in stock markets with the Volatility Index rising sharply. A number of tech stocks that had been massively overpriced over the past year have seen massive sell-offs. A primary driver for this has been the need of hedge funds covering their short positions selling their long positions in these stocks - but also other investors selling in response to the volatility with stocks such as Netflix dropping five per cent. <br />
<br />
The problem with this process is not that an individual hedge fund may collapse, or that this or that firm may see it’s stock rise or fall, or that a lot of the people participating in the events of Wednesday will lose a lot of money - while others will make a fortune. Let’s be clear everyone involved was participating in a gamble to make money, no matter what their professed motivations. What we should be concerned about is that the stock market - whilst technically separated from the real economy can cause major disruptions to the real economy. An economy which is extremely fragile due to the impact of not the Pandemic but the lingering effects of the 2007-2008 global financial crisis and the ongoing accumulation crisis which was highlighted by the 1973 oil crisis. What this means is that sneezes such as that of January 27 risk a broader financial collapse, the consequence of which will not be primarily felt by billionaires but by ordinary working people who will lose jobs and see their retirement funds evaporate - just as has happened after every major stock market crash. <br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div></span><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span>
</div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-18059153673168478212021-01-29T08:59:00.003+08:002021-01-29T08:59:42.071+08:00On Trump’s Twitter ban <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEYiWiFSnuEbXOayf8q2vBiKlE8Oyjiu4V_Ct4wPICmJp6HBITenqfj6iInntg9Ii7maqw9l7-0oHVTHbJqHrkoTwB2gEdbhxQ33PcFJOz6-NgYYaVuQwKZAP0CJdOaOqjhZ5qqgn43Ms/s2048/twitter-ban-speech.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="1152" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEYiWiFSnuEbXOayf8q2vBiKlE8Oyjiu4V_Ct4wPICmJp6HBITenqfj6iInntg9Ii7maqw9l7-0oHVTHbJqHrkoTwB2gEdbhxQ33PcFJOz6-NgYYaVuQwKZAP0CJdOaOqjhZ5qqgn43Ms/s320/twitter-ban-speech.png"/></a></div><br /><br />Lisbeth Latham<br />
<br />
On January 8, <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html" target="_blank">Twitter</a> announced that Trump would be permanently banned from the platform, this was followed by an announcement by Amazon that it would no longer be hosting right-wing social media platform <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-10/apple-bans-social-media-site-parler-from-app-store-after-us-riot/13045868" target="_blank">Parler on its servers</a>, and that Apple and Google were removing Parler from their app stores. These announcements have greeted with predictable howls of outrage from the right about freedom of speech and prompted <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-twitter-ban-renews-calls-tech-law-changes-many-ncna1253627" target="_blank">discussions to limit the ability of Twitter and other social media companies to ban users</a>. However, the move was also met with concern and opposition by <a href="https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/31884/20-01-2021/trump-twitter-ban-only-independent-workers-voice-can-defeat-right" target="_blank">sections of the left</a> concerned by these bans and the potential that the same policy could be used to silence the left. Whilst the right’s statements are inspired by demagoguery, both their statements and those by left opponents fundamentally misunderstand the question of free speech as an unfettered right that <a href="https://tenor.com/Rre4.gif">trumps</a> all other concerns. Moreover, many left’s criticisms fundamentally misunderstand the problems of corporate control under capitalism and how we should challenge this power.
<span id="fullpost"><br />
<br />
Trump’s banning from Facebook and Twitter was not just a response to his comments and tweets around the insurrectionary storming of the Capitol building on January 6. It followed years of Trump using Twitter as a platform for <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-trump-impacts-harmful-twitter-speech-a-case-study-in-three-tweets/" target="_blank">incitement and misinformation</a> in violation of Twitter’s terms and conditions. Moreover, there has been an ongoing debate about the proliferation of racist and misogynist material and harassment on <a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/twitter-still-failing-women-over-online-violence-and-abuse/" target="_blank">social media platforms</a> and their failure to properly apply their own Terms and Service about appropriate behaviour. <br />
<br />
The emergence of the internet, social media, and digital media have been seen as making a massive contribution to the democratisation of the dissemination of information, as they offer relatively cheap mechanisms to potentially reach millions of people. At the same time, the reality is that the democratic character and opportunity to equal access to these mediums is relatively illusionary. Whilst anyone can establish a Twitter account, the ability to use Twitter, or any other social media, as a mechanism for communicating with others is not equal and it is not unmediated. From their inception, social media companies have been attempting to develop ways in which to monetise their platforms. This has primarily been achieved by the introduction of algorithms which limit organic reach encourages users to explore spending money to increase reach or attract followers. The reality is that like other mediums, social media do not provide equal platforms across society – they disproportionately favour the powerful – who are able to exploit their power and wealth to generate substantially greater reach than the average person.<br />
<br />
Freedom of speech is one of the great achievements of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions beginning in the seventeenth century – the idea that the state should not be able to punish or persecute individuals and groups for saying things that the state objected to. Having said this, it is also a concept which is now widely abused, with people increasing suggesting any critique of speech as being a violation of this “right” – seeing freedom of speech as a right to speak without consequence or responsibility, and right that more important than all other rights including the rights of others to their own freedom speech and autonomy. <br />
<br />
The denial of a platform is not a violation of freedom of speech, as there is no right to any given platform – if there were then the reality would be that for the majority of the world’s population it would be a right that is violated on a daily basis. Moreover to argue that to deny the right of any publication or organization to be able to withdraw a platform, on the basis that it is a violation of free speech is to reject the concepts of editorial independence, moral responsibility, and autonomy of individuals in general. Moreover, it robs the powerless of important political weapons of demanding the withdrawal and denial of platforms.<br />
<br />
It would mean that a publishing house could not withdraw a publishing contract because of an assessment that a particular author was an anathema to their values (or more accurately a risk to their profits) such as publishing company Simon & Schuster cancelling <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/21/milo-yiannopoulos-book-deal-cancelled-outrage-child-abuse-comments" target="_blank">Milo Yiannopoulos’s publishing deal</a>. It would mean that the other Simon & Schuster contracted authors who threatened to <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/writers-revolt-over-milo-yiannopoulos-book-deal-a3432081.html" target="_blank">leave the publisher</a> were really part of denying freedom of speech – even though they were threatening their own loss of a platform. It would mean a right to the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/22/bnp-question-time-protest-arrests" target="_blank">far-right to appearances on TV and Radio</a>, something that has been a central target of left and anti-fascist mobilising for decades. <br />
<br />
More chillingly, this argument feeds into the campaign by conservative government’s globally to criminalise boycott and divestment campaigns aimed at promoting that companies and organize withdraw commercial and financial relationships with problematic corporate actors such as the global <a href="https://thewire.in/diplomacy/german-parliament-criminalises-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-movement" target="_blank">Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign</a> targeting businesses operating illegally in the Palestinian Occupied Territories; the campaign to block financing and insurance for <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6470618/morrison-doesnt-like-it-when-the-quiet-australians-start-to-speak-up/" target="_blank">Bravos’ massive Carmichael coal mine project in Queensland</a>, and numerous corporate campaigns for justice that have been key tactics of a range of movements for decades.<br />
<br />
The reality is that companies and other organisations act in their own interests. This means that there can be a confluence of interests between capital and the far-right, even “liberal-capitalism” will see its interests more in line with the aggressive right than the left, particularly when push comes to shove. <br />
<br />
As a consequence, the left is less likely to have the same level of access to platforms, and we will face the danger of being denied platforms. There are a range of responses that we have historically taken – the first is recognising that capital will protect their interests and seeking to build our own networks of platforms. Historically this has been clearest with the establishment of left papers, magazines, and publishing houses. While the advance of digital technology has opened up new opportunities for communication, the underlying cost of starting up some aspects of platforms have also increased. It is potentially outside the means of individuals, but most likely not outside that of collectives of the left, most notably unions. In the event where the ability for the left to be hosted on the internet were to be challenged, it would be possible to explore and establish this capacity, and ideally, we would be doing this prior to such a challenge. Beyond this, as with anything, we need to be making the case in defence of the right of the left and progressive voices to speak and be heard, placing pressure and mobilising resistance to any attempt to silence us. However, this can’t be based on an agnostic view of, or even worse a defence, of the right to promote hatred and violence opposing actions by private companies to limit this type of speech.<br />
<br />
The development of corporate power poses a massive threat to democracy globally. However, this power cannot be challenged by the left throwing itself into a defence of the far-right’s right to platform on social media or the internet or any other communication medium, or backing right-wing governmental attempts to limit democratic space to contest their policies and their protection of anti-social corporations and organisations.<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span>
Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3985595298808009995.post-56874958699790860572021-01-15T16:02:00.000+08:002021-01-15T16:02:28.511+08:00United States: On the threat of the far-rightLisbeth Latham<br />
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKuOIDfnhRhcmAL-sNdNMjC-vhqCBB8yIi-DRJu331qL_yYSvrrCCDI88ajV3M3d4scDWhC87Hu2KLOnc1QM60L9oXyHjDboVQ66J0J0Rzq24Ndu3fnf16xdEWD1c1TK6BkM3RVyaeWPw/s400/capitol-hill-400x250.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="400" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKuOIDfnhRhcmAL-sNdNMjC-vhqCBB8yIi-DRJu331qL_yYSvrrCCDI88ajV3M3d4scDWhC87Hu2KLOnc1QM60L9oXyHjDboVQ66J0J0Rzq24Ndu3fnf16xdEWD1c1TK6BkM3RVyaeWPw/w400-h250/capitol-hill-400x250.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
On January 6 - thousands of pro-Trump militants, including members of the Proud Boys, and other white-supremacist armed groups, held protests in DC which culminated in the storming of the Capitol Building aiming to disrupting the certification of the presidential results by Congress. Similar actions occurred across the US outside of state buildings and governors’ residences. In the wake of the storming of the Capitol, there has been a wide range of reactions, this has included Trump’s sympathisers in the media seeking to shift responsibility for the attack and at the same time downplaying the importance of that attacks on the capitol. At the same time sections of the left have sought also downplay the significance of the events focusing on finding humour in the limitations of the action, the form it took, - as a mechanism both ridiculing the protests and the failures of the US state in handling them. It is important that what was attempted on the sixth is properly appreciated and that it be taken seriously by the left. Both as a stand-alone event, but also as a consequence of what it symbolises regarding the development and confidence of the fascist forces and the accommodation that they have made with the centre-right in a significant number of countries. <br /><br />
<span id="fullpost">
From the start of the confrontation at the Capitol building, sections of the right-wing media sought to downplay and shift responsibility for the actions at the capitol. Miranda Devine on <a href="https://twitter.com/MrKRudd/status/1347029693632024577" target="_blank">Twitter</a> attempted to argue that the protest was a consequence of the “left” supporting and normalising the “violence” of black lives matter protests - Devine, writing in the <i><a href="https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-destroys-republican-party-on-way-out-the-door-devine/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons" target="_blank">New York Post</a></i> pivoted to argue that the real tragedy of January 6 was going to be felt by Republicans and Trump. Whilst as the seriousness of what was occurring became harder and harder for the right to downplay, sections of the far-right, such as <a href="https://www.newsbreak.com/videos/2141619967439/antifa-and-the-storming-of-the-capitol-sebastian-gorka-on-america-first" target="_blank">Sebastion Gorka</a>, a former Deputy Assistant to the President in the Trump Administration, shifted to an argument that in reality, it was really a false flag exercise driven by the left, most particularly Antifa. This is a gaslighting strategy, relying on the ready distribution of disinformation in the media and on social media. This is a lie that has been picked up widely on Twitter at the same time as significant numbers of registered Republicans support the events at the Capitol building.<br />
<br />
The reality is that a significant number of participants came both intending and prepared to disrupt not just the city but the Capitol Building. That this was encouraged by Trump and other Republican leaders in the lead up to, on the day after the protest. It is also clear that these mobilisations have not stopped, and are likely to escalate in the lead up to Biden’s inauguration on January 20 and its wake. <br />
<br />
The events of January 6, must be viewed from the broader context of the efforts by Trump and his supporters to identify ways to overturn the results of the November 3 elections and to reinstall Trump for a second term in the presidency. The right has been entirely open in this attempt to subvert the elections. This included discussions of trying to stop the certification of the elections in Congress, which had the potential to trigger a vote within Congress by <a href="https://theconversation.com/congress-could-select-the-president-in-a-disputed-election-149580" target="_blank">state delegations</a>, with each state getting one vote. If this was to have occurred there was a possibility that the Republicans would have potentially have had the numbers to give the presidency to Trump. <br />
<br />
Blocking the certification of the elections has been a key focus of a number of the failed court challenges launched by Trump and his proxies. It has also been a point of public discussion as to whether VP Mike Pence had the power to do so. Also, there has been open discussion within the administration regarding Trump’s ability to invoke the “Insurrection Act” as a mechanism to mobilise the military to overturn the election results. All of these examples are attempts by Trump and his supporters seeking mechanisms to give a legal veneer to attempts to subvert the democratic process. While there was a clear intent to disrupt and intimidate the confirmation of voting, it is not clear how coherent the plan was or whether there was what could be called a plan rather than a shared intent.<br />
<br />
It is highly unlikely that what was attempted could have been more than a disruption. Importantly it is unlikely they would have been able to maintain the disruption for much longer than was realistically possible. Even if successful, the overturning of the elections would not just have faced a judicial challenge, but may not have been accepted as legitimate by either significant sections of the state, most importantly the armed forces, or the broader community. While they were clearly trying to create a veneer of constitutionality, if it was not accepted the attempt would either have collapsed under its own weight or turned into a bloody struggle within both the state and broader society. Such a conflict would have had significant negative consequences for working communities. It would have also required the left to take a clear position against the far-right, seeking to mobilise the working class initially in defence of the state, aiming to build the confidence for independent mobilisation in defence of the working class’s interests.<br />
<br />
The storming of the Capitol Building was only possible as a result of sections of the state deliberately undermining the capacity to respond to the known threat to Congress. <br />
<br />
For weeks it was known that there would be a large scale mobilisation of Trump’s supporters, Most likely heavily armed, with the aim at best of disrupting and terrorising the city, if not disrupting the confirmation process itself. Much has been made of the fact that the security response to this protest was substantially smaller and less hostile than for previous protests by progressive groups, most particularly the Black Lives Matter rallies in 2020.
<br /><br />
It is important to recognise that there are several factors playing into this. The downplaying the significance of the event, and likely size. The non-calling calling up of national guard units to support police presence at the Capitol building - this is being blamed on both the Capitol Hill Police and the Department of Defence (DoD). Who both failed to take the threat seriously and responded slowly to the unravelling events despite efforts by the Democratic Party leadership in Congress and by the Governor of Maryland to mobilise the National Guard. <br />
<br />
However, in addition to this deliberate undermining of the capacity of the Police to protect the Capitol, there is substantial evidence of police enabling the protests in entering the building. Joshua Chaffin, Courtney Weaver, and James Politi writing in the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/5c471c49-de90-4f5f-9c91-19be0daa491c" target="_blank"><i>Financial Times</i></a> described the police response as “a strangely flaccid police force”. In the wake of the protests, the Capitol Hill Police chief, and the sergeants at arms for both the Senate and the House all resigned, under threats from Democratic Party Congressional leadership that they would push to remove them. Given these events, and the reports of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-to-make-changes-to-presidential-detail-to-bring-on-agents-who-worked-with-biden/2020/12/30/d6fb8fe8-49ce-11eb-a9d9-1e3ec4a928b9_story.html" target="_blank">Secret Service agents</a> being overly close and intertwined into Trump camp. Sections of the US state will likely require heavy de-Trumpification by the Biden administration. This should be supported, both to clear out Trump’s supporters within the state and to send a message to the Republicans that there is a consequence for their actions.<br />
<br />
Some on the left have dismissed the seriousness of the events in Washington. This dismissal has primarily based on three issues:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span id="fullpost">
That it was a relatively small ineffective action; </span></li><li><span>That the insurrectionists are clownish and ridiculous.</span></li><li><span>That this was a chance for the US to get a taste of their own medicine; </span></li></ul>
While the mobilisation and incursion into the Capitol Building were relatively small, poorly organised, and ultimately failed, those are facts that we should be thankful for. It is not something to make jokes about as that risks us being complacent about the threat posed. It is also important to understand that right-wing insurrectionary movements tend to have a very different appearance to left-wing ones. As the right is more likely to find support within significant sections of capital, and because it is often the expression of frustration and anger by the petty-bourgeoisie, it is likely to also start to develop influence within the state. This may be either by direct recruitment or as a proxy for those sections of capital supporting the movement. This means, as against left-wing movements which are reliant on the social power of mass movements. Right-wing movements don’t necessarily need to have the same level of mass base, at least initially, they can simply rely on capturing sufficient amounts of the state, most notably the armed forces and police to bring society and the rest of the state to heel. However, fascism, as a mechanism of social control and repression over the working class does eventually need to take on a mass character but in doing so it also tends to become entwined with the state.<br />
<br />
The outfits, which people have derided, speak to the development of networks of shared identities which are being developed within sections of the US far-right which tap into a range of right-wing traditions within the US and speak to and have resonance within those traditions. Most particularly within the QAnon conspiracy, the militia movement, and various other neo-nazi, proto-fascist and far-right groups. However, despite whatever we may think of their fashion choices, it doesn’t take away from the reality that there is a significant number of heavily armed right-wing groups who are developing an insurrectionary outlook and which are being engaged with and successfully mobilised by Trump and his proxies - and that is seriously dangerous for working people, particularly communities of colour, within the US. <br />
<br />
While there may be some sense of schadenfreude regarding the events of January 6, the people who would have paid the price were not going to primarily be the US ruling class. They would be able and willing to come to an accommodation with whatever was to be installed. The people who would have paid the price would be working people, communities of colour, queer communities, people with disabilities, and women. When people think that seeing the US unravel into a dictatorship as in some way funny they are not thinking about the real targets of any mass repression of progressive forces and marginalised communities.<br />
<br />
While some people may see the process unfolding as a weakening of the US state and think it is a good thing. It is not primarily that. At present what we are seeing is an unravelling of US ruling class hegemony and the emergence of an extreme right-wing movement, primarily within the US petty bourgeoisie. This movement is parts, at least, developing an insurrectionary outlook. The key problem here is both weaknesses of the left which is not currently in a position to act as a counterweight. The problem is that the US capitalist class is likely to become increasingly unpredictable both domestically and internationally. While this may provide some opportunities it may escalate potential threats. <br />
<br />
It is not the role of the left to help rebuild the hegemonic power of bourgeois liberal democracy, but we should care about a shattering of democratic norms and we should be opposed to any attempts by the right to subvert democracy. This is not just a danger in the US, but across the globe where far-right populist movements have grown in strength and confidence. Moreover increasing sections of the centre-right are embracing the language and symbolism of the populist far-right, while much of this is cynical the reality is that it serves to strengthen and legitimise the far-right. Adding to this danger is the reality that sections of the police and armed forces in several countries have been penetrated. This is not just the case in the US where off duty police and armed forces personnel participated in the storming of the Capitol building. In Germany where the government has moved to <a href="https://braveneweurope.com/duroyan-fertl-kill-lists-and-commandos-germany-has-a-nazi-problem" target="_blank">disband special forces units</a> due to the influence of the far-right. Sections of the US government are making noises about the need to clear out the US armed forces of far-right influences, on January 12, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/12/956170188/joint-chiefs-remind-u-s-forces-that-they-defend-the-constitution">memorandum</a> to those serving in the US armed forces reminding of them to their “duty to defend the US Constitution”, but it is important that they be held to account in doing this and that this not just be limited to the armed forces but to police and sheriffs departments as well. <br />
<br />
A central objective for progressive forces everywhere must be to build our ability and confidence to mobilise and counter mobilise to oppose the far-right threat. The left must continue the tradition of being the most consistent and ardent defenders of democracy. In the US context, this would include pushing firmly against the undemocratic features of the US constitution and electoral laws which the Republicans have sought to exploit both before and during the current electoral cycle. We must demand that the state consistently apply the law against legitimate violations that pose a threat to working people and marginalised communities. It also means being prepared to push back against overreach and attempts by the state to go further than is necessary to respond to the threat posed by the far-right, however, we must be clear that the far-right poses a serious and existential threat which must be responded to. <br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;">------------------------------------------------------------------------------- </div></span><div><br /><div><span>This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.
</span>
</div></div>Lisbeth Lathamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06398324449499609878noreply@blogger.com0