Chicago Workers Open New Cooperatively Owned Factory Five Years After Republic Windows Occupation

[The occupation by UE members at Republic Windows was one of the first things I wrote about when I established this blog. Five years on - they set up a cooperative to run their old workplace. This story is from Democracy Now!]

Workers at the New Era Windows Cooperative are celebrating the grand opening of their new unionized, worker-owned and -operated business. Almost a year to the day after their window factory closed, a group of former workers have launched their own window business without bosses. They successfully raised money to buy the factory collectively and run it democratically. In 2008, some of the workers were involved in a famous six-day sit-in after Republic Windows and Doors gave workers just three days’ notice before closing the factory. The sit-in drew national attention and union workers reached a settlement where they each received $6,000 each. About 65 workers occupied the factory after their jobs came under threat again in 2012. We speak to two worker-owners of the just-opened New Era Windows Cooperative and a labor organizer who helped with their fight.
   

Transcript 

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In labor news, we go now to Chicago. Workers at the New Era Windows Cooperative are celebrating the grand opening of their unionized, 100 percent worker-owned and -operated business. Almost a year to the day after their window factory closed, a group of former workers have launched their own window business without bosses. They successfully raised money to buy the factory collectively and run it democratically.

AMY GOODMAN: In 2008, some of the workers were involved in a famous six-day sit-in after Republic Windows and Doors gave workers just three days’ notice before closing the factory. The sit-in drew national attention. Union workers reached a settlement where they each received $6,000. The Goose Island plant, run by Serious Energy, faced a second occupation in 2012. About 65 workers occupied the factory in an attempt to save their jobs again. This is an excerpt of a documentary produced by the workers’ union, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America.

ROCIO PEREZ: [translated] They gave us like an hour, more or less. They came and said, "OK, you have your papers. Now go." That is when we said, "No, we’re not leaving. This is where we’re staying."

RON BENDER: So we decided—we just said, "Hey, we’re going to stay here until, you know, you all give us some better answers than this."

FACTORY WORKERS: ¡Sí, se puede! ¡Sí, se puede!

CBS NEWS: This is a group ready for a fight.

MARK MEINSTER: We put it to a vote, and workers decided that they will be staying in the plant for the remainder of the weekend.

CBS NEWS: More than 200 of Republic Windows and Doors’ 300 union workers are staging a sit-in of sorts until they get what is legally owed to them. The union says company officials told employees they were closing shop because Bank of America would no longer extend Republic a line of credit. Bank of America wouldn’t confirm that, due to confidentiality concerns. Workers say the fact that Bank of America received $25 billion in the federal bailout makes this even more unacceptable.

ARMANDO ROBLES: I’m going to stay until the end. If they tell me I have to leave, well, they have to arrest me.

REPORTER: You’re prepared to be arrested?

ARMANDO ROBLES: I’m prepared to be arrested, if it’s necessary.

FACTORY WORKERS: ¡Y no nos vamos! ¡Aquí estamos y no nos vamos!

CBS NEWS: Translation: "We are here, and we are not going anywhere."

MELVIN MACLIN: We have been here overnight. We’ve been here since yesterday, and we aren’t going anywhere. We are committed to this.

CBS NEWS: Melvin Maclin is one of dozens of Republic Windows and Doors workers who is staying put in the company’s cafeteria until he gets his remaining vacation, healthcare and severance pay.

FACTORY WORKERS: You got bailed out! We got sold out!

PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: These workers, if they have earned these benefits and their pay, then these companies need to follow through on those commitments.

REV. JESSE JACKSON: Workers all around the nation who are now facing massive layoffs, it’s your job, it’s your plant. Stay there and fight for them ’til justice comes. And justice will come.

AMY GOODMAN: That last voice, Jesse Jackson, Reverend Jesse Jackson. Excerpts from a video produced by the workers’ union, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. We’re joined now by two of the workers featured in that video, Armando Robles and Melvin "Ricky" Maclin. They join us now from Chicago, Illinois, along with the Brendan Martin, president and founder of The Working World.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Armando Robles worked at Republic Windows and Doors for eight years. He then worked at the successor, Serious company, for another three years. He is one of 20 workers at New Era Windows Cooperative, a worker-owned company. Armando is also president of Local 1110 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America in Chicago, a maintenance worker at the former Republic Windows and Doors factory. And Melvin "Ricky" Maclin worked at Republic Windows and Doors for almost a decade. He then worked at the successor, Serious company, for three years. He’s also one of the workers at the newly opened cooperative. Welcome, all of you, to Democracy Now!

BRENDAN MARTIN: Thank you.

ARMANDO ROBLES: Thank you.

MELVIN MACLIN: Thank you.

BRENDAN MARTIN: Thanks for having us.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Armando, if we could start with you, the road you’ve traveled now, from the second closing now to reopening this cooperative, how did that come about?

ARMANDO ROBLES: It comes from an idea. The last time when I be on Democracy Now! in 2009, the first time, even though—I met Brendan Martin, which is on my left side. And then, after, we talked about creating a new—why we don’t make a cooperative? And it comes to—it sounds to me a great and a brilliant idea. But in that point, somebody was buying the Republic Windows and Doors machinery and—Serious Energy. But I was—in my mind, that, so when—and I told him, "You know what? Owners are owners, and they close factories. And we never know when this person is going to close the factory." This guy close, and we never [inaudible] to call Brendan Martin, take the offer and put the project in process. And at this point, it’s a great day for us. We’re going to open our cooperative. It’s called New Era Windows. And I’m really, really happy. It’s a lot of work we made. It’s a lot of learning process. But at this point, we have the factory now open.

AMY GOODMAN: Brendan Martin, talk about exactly what you did, how this new cooperative got organized.

BRENDAN MARTIN: Well, I came off of working in Argentina for about nine years with factories in a similar situation. They were closed down, and workers took them over and began running them. So then I met Armando Robles in New York in 2009 and mentioned this history to him. And he thought, "Wow! That seems kind of—that would be good." And then, three years later, in 2012, he and some of the other workers called up and said, "OK, remember that co-op idea? What if we—can we really make that happen?" And I said, "I’ve seen it happen before. Why not?" So I flew out to Chicago. We began talking about what it would mean to form a cooperative. And we began raising the money for the workers to buy the plant for themselves.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ricky Maclin, after the first protest—and I remember being there in 2008 covering that when you all sat in—and then the second—the reopening and then the second closing—how did you feel in terms of the prospects for this factory being able to continue?

MELVIN MACLIN: After Serious had bought the old Republic plant?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes.

BRENDAN MARTIN: After they closed down the second time.

MELVIN MACLIN: After they closed down the second time, then Armando and I, we had been having a conversation, and we were discussing the possibility. And that’s where that it really started for me. I thought that it may could work. And we both said, "Well, we have to give it a shot." I mean, because at that time, I believe, I was like 58 years old. So, at 58, I can’t just roll up into a ball and die, so I have to do something. And so, we decided to fight, what we do best. And I remember the slogan, "We win what we fight for." So, we have been fighting for this plant, and today is really a beautiful day. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Armando Robles, talk about what you’re going to make there. Talk about New Era, this New Era Windows Cooperative.

ARMANDO ROBLES: Could you repeat the question for me?

AMY GOODMAN: What are you making at the New Era Windows Cooperative? I mean, how do people get involved? What are the products you’re making?

ARMANDO ROBLES: We’re going to start making replacement windows, vinyl windows and commercial windows—it’s our goal—and for affordable price and a good-quality product for the workers. At the beginning of this, I think we, us, know how to make windows. But after all work done we have at this point, I learned so much in this year. We put a factory in place in all the right spots. Yesterday, we have our check from the city. They checked—the inspector, they inspect the whole building, and they approve us our job. So, not even do just windows, but we would like to make a New Era for the United States, helping people creating cooperatives and create our good-quality and affordable windows for the region and for the United States.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Brendan Martin, I would have to assume that the labor unions alone and labor union members could provide a steady demand for the products of the factory. Have you gotten any—any bites or orders yet from—pressed by other unions or other—or unionized workers?

BRENDAN MARTIN: We have actually gotten early interest in the windows from people in unions, from housing cooperatives, and just from people across the United States and in the Chicago area who support jobs being saved by their workers rather than destroyed by their owners. But without a doubt, we still need more support to come in. So, anybody out there—these are residential windows. Anyone who’s listening can buy them. They fit in anyone’s home. They’ll save you money on your energy bill and pay for themselves in a few years. So, please come to our website, newerawindows.com, participate in this project by buying some windows, and then go out and start your own cooperative. We do have a lot of interest from the community, but we need more of the community to pile in and make this happen.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you very much for being with us, and congratulations on opening day, Armando Robles and Ricky Maclin, workers at New Era Windows Cooperative, and Brendan Martin, president and founder of The Working World. As we move to our last segment—

BRENDAN MARTIN: Thank you, Amy.

ARMANDO ROBLES: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Thanks so much.

Read more...

France: The vote on gay marriage

Gabriel Girard

Originally published in International Viewpoint

April 2013

On 23 April the second vote in the National Assembly passed this proposal into law. The radicalisation of the opponents to “Marriage for all” had continued apace since the article below was written. Demonstrations saw the “parliamentary right” alongside leading members of the far-right National Front, although not Marine Le Pen herself. Homophobia became frighteningly visible, including in attacks on people leaving gay bars in a number of cities. The demonstrations by partisans of the draft law, although supported by the Socialist Party and the other parties to its left (Front de Gauche including the Parti de Gauche and Communist Party, the NPA...), did not mobilise as broadly. This is no doubt due to the general disillusion with the Socialist Party government. International Viewpoint will publish more in the future on the polarisation around this question. [International Viewpoint]

On Tuesday 12 February, a little before 5pm, the French National Assembly voted by a large majority for the so-called “marriage for all” law, which gives same sex couples the right to civil marriage and to adopt children. Although this is a first reading, with the law yet having to be examined and voted on by the Senate, there is no doubt that the text will be definitively adopted before the summer, since the left holds the majority in both chambers.

This vote comes after several months of intense debates within French society between supports and opponents of equal rights. The satisfaction of an old demand of the LGBT movement is an undeniable success. However, the formal equality thus acquired does not end the fight against homophobia and transphobia. The adoption of the law, an indispensable stage on the road to equality, could however accentuate the process of differentiation developing among gays and lesbians. For the better off, a homosexual lifestyle is becoming increasingly one option among others. A banalisation barely detectable in the more precarious fringes of the community (youth, transgender, women, ethnic minorities, the HIV positive and so on), while the economic crisis strengthens dependency on the family, undermining the material conditions of emancipation. Awkwardly, some critical actors in “homo-nationalism” have in recent weeks wished to stress the existence of these fractures, in particular in the popular neighbourhoods and among young people of immigrant origin. [1] Some dangerous positions which have revived controversies on racism and imperialism in the LGBT communities, which run through the movement at an international level. Not a very good climate for a constructive debate on these issues.

Developing an approach of critical emancipation of hetero-normality, which is however attentive to the rhythms of mobilisation and politicisation of the majority of LGBT persons is the challenge for radical activists and the left of the LGBT movement.

The context

Contained in the manifesto of the candidate of the Parti Socialiste, François Hollande, during the presidential campaign of 2012, the demand for the right to same sex marriage has been raised for 15 years by the French LGBT movements.

In 1999, the left government had established the PaCS, a contract of civil union offering a legal framework to same sex couples, but without granting them all the associated rights of marriage. At the time, this first advance, however timid, had raised heated debates on the left, some fearing that the recognition of same sex unions threatened the “symbolic order” of the family. As an illustration of this, the adoption of the PaCS had been delayed for several months by the weak mobilisation of left deputies, who were in the minority in the Assembly during the first vote on the text. For the LGBT movements, the PaCS was a protective gain notably for couples including an HIV positive partner. But it was immediately challenged as a discriminatory law, because it established a legal inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

From 2000 onwards, in a context where the right was in power, equality of rights rapidly became the main demand of the LGBT movements. In 2004, as Spain legalised the right to same sex marriage, a Green deputy, N. Mamère, participated in a marriage between two men, taking advantage of a loophole in the law: the sex of the married couple was not specified in the Civil Code. This symbolic action of disobedience had a high media profile, but remained isolated, with no other elected representative following. In subsequent years, the demand for marriage remained a priority on the agenda of LGBT struggles. But the perception that a victory would not be possible while the right was in power led most organisations to await a left electoral victory. Hence, while equality remained the main theme of Gay Pride Marches, no significant political campaign was waged on the subject.

The weakening of a perspective in terms of construction of a relationship of forces on these issues explains to a great extent the relative disorganisation of activist groups at the time where the right and Catholic Church entered the debate in September 2012.

The forces on the ground

During the debate on the PaCS in the late 1990s, the right and its fringes close to the Catholic Church had already led a heated opposition to the project, organising a demonstration of nearly 100,000 persons in Paris. The emblem of this anti-PaCS right, the deputy Christine Boutin, had not hesitated to brandish the Bible in the National Assembly to support her arguments. In a general manner, debate gave way to a deluge of homophobia. Meanwhile the left and the LGBT movements remained barely audible, and the Socialist Party was divided on the subject.

In 2012, the context was very different. The Socialists had just won the elections; the right was defeated, weakened by an internal leadership race and electorally rivalled by the Front National. The UMP leaders thus sought subjects to oppose the left, since the austerity policies pursued by Hollande left it with little room to differentiate itself. The draft law on “marriage for all” gave it an opportunity. In contrast to the debate on the PaCS, opponents advanced an apparently more “subtle” approach.

Openly homophobic discourse was abandoned, at least publicly, and the arguments centred above all on issues of parenting (adoption, medically assisted procreation, surrogate parenting). The figureheads of the “anti-equality” movement – two gays against marriage and a second rate singer/humorist – sought to offer a less political face to this combat. The critique of the “right to the child” and the defence of family values provided the rhetorical framework for the right. However, without surprise, opposition to the draft law rested on a highly reactionary movement very much anchored to the right and the Catholic networks. And during the demonstrations, homophobic slogans dominated. Two big demonstrations were organised, on November 17, 2012 and January 13, 2013, which attracted hundreds of thousands of people, supported by the UMP and the Front National, as well as the main representatives of Catholicism and other monotheistic religions. The Catholic Church put all its strength into the battle, massively organising the transport of demonstrators to Paris.

Occupying the media terrain, the anti equality forces adopted an essentialist and sexist discourse on gender and the heterosexual family order. They succeeded in polarising the debate around parenting and mobilised deputies opposed to the draft. The confusion reached its target, when Hollande wobbled, evoking a “conscience clause” for mayors hostile to the law. This, coupled with the massive demonstration of November 17, had the effect of an electric shock for LGBT activists and their supports. All the more in that the discourse of the right gave new life to everyday homophobia. On December 16, at the call of associations, trade unions and left political parties, nearly 150,000 people demonstrated throughout France in support of equal rights. The political left as a whole (NPA, Front de Gauche, Socialist Party, Greens) gave its support to the draft law. This demonstration, followed by a new, still bigger, march on January 27, was an unexpected event. They marked the most significant mobilisation for the LGBT movement in the past 40 years, apart from the Gay Pride Marches (which in recent years have attracted nearly 500,000 people in Paris).

However the government continued to send contradictory signals. While stating its determination, it retreated on the issues of parenting, explaining that access to assisted fertilisation for female couples would not be part of the draft law. Meanwhile Hollande personally received the organisers of the anti-marriage demonstrations, and the government unambiguously denounced surrogacy. The law voted for on February 12 satisfied some of the major demands of the LGBT movement but remained short of hopes.

Even if it is still too soon to draw the balance sheet, the mobilisation in favour of equal rights in autumn and winter constituted an important vector of politicisation in the LGBT communities. During these demonstrations, poles of radicalism appeared: the Pink block, articulating anti-capitalism, anti-racism and the fight against hetro normality; or the collective “Oui, oui, oui”, notably around the Panthères Roses, defending a clear demand for equality faced with the hesitations of the socialist government. More broadly, hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians have gone onto the street, taken part in social networks, in their places of study or work, expressing the force of a daily resistance to the homophobic discourse of the right.

The strategic issues for the LGBT movement

The limits to this mobilisation should be noted however. Strategically, it has at first rapidly appeared indispensable to agree on unifying demands. But with the pro equality movement being established above all in reaction to the right wing mobilisation, and according to the legislative calendar, demobilisation could be strong once the law is definitively adopted. The institutional bodies of the movement (the inter-LGBT in particular) bear a great share of the responsibility for this. At a time when the recrudescence of homophobic discourse and acts observed during recent months has cruelly underlined the need to continue a basic struggle on this terrain.

On the “content” of equality, the recent mobilisation has not allowed deeper debates to emerge. Hence, the feminist critiques of the institution of marriage or the necessary debates on surrogacy have been inaudible. For the left activists of the LGBT movement, a “progressive” strategy has been imposed: to win first on marriage and adoption so as then to push forward debates on family and conjugal norms. However, in the absence of democratic structuring, the potential political space for these debates could be significantly reduced in the coming weeks.

Footnotes

[1] Houria Bouteldja, “Universalisme gay, homoracialisme et ‘mariage pour tous’”, February 12, 2012,.

Read more...

France: Act UP-Paris Calls for Mobilisation Against Homophobic Violence

For equality, against homophobia
Call to rally Sunday, 21 April at Bastille

Act UP-Paris
Act Up-Paris calls for a rally this Sunday, 21 April 2013 in Paris, Place de la Bastille. Faced with the onslaught of hatred that hasengulfed all dykes, trans*, bies, fags, we demand equal rights.

The lack of equal rights maintains homo/lesbo/transphobia, promotes suicide and unsafe behavior vis-à-vis HIV/AIDS and STIs.

For all these reasons, we demand total equality of rights between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - marriage, filiation; IFV open to all women - and opening of rights for trans* people – gender recognition based on affirmed gender with no cost and free choice in medical treatment. These measures should be accompanied by actual plans to fight against the violence and stigma that we experience daily.

More than a social issue, it is a practical necessity for us, trans, dykes, bies, intersex and fags.

Six months ago, our lives are the subject of a "debate" of whether we deserve the full rights due to us. For a week, the homophobes asked openly that our blood flow.

We no longer want to see their words in the media legitimized, to endure seeing their hatred towards us considered an acceptable part of discussion. Because in their eyes our lives have less value than the others: we die.

We decided to live. We refuse to see the street abandoned to violent and fascist groups that are homo/lesbo/transphobic, sexist, racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic. We refuse to see the growth of violence and threats against us.

Given the union of extreme right against equal rights, we call for solidarity. The heterosexuals who do not condone the violence perpetrated against us, must understand that their silence allows the homophobic acts. We demand full equality of rights and benefits for all minorities.

First Signatories
Act Up-Paris, Act Up-Sud Ouest, le P¡nk Bloc Paris, le SNEG, le STRASS, Gouine Comme Un Camion, AIDES, Étudions Gayment, le collectif Oui Oui Oui, Sortir du Colonialisme, le Caélif, Plug N’Play, les efFRONTé-e-s, MIF, LGBT Formation (Avignon), What The Film !, Txy, Collectif 8-Mars pour Toutes, Municigays (Marseille), Barbieturix, les Ours de Paris, Acceptess-T, Angel 91, le Collectif Cancan/Cockorico, l’Inter-LGBT, Hétéros au boulot, UEEH (universités d’été euroméditerrannéennes des homosexualités), Support Transgenre Strasbourg, la Fédération Total Respect / Tjenbé Rèd, les CHEFF (Belgique), Collectif Hétéros au boulot !, la Fédération des étudiants LGBTQI francophones de Belgique, Relais VIH de Rodez (12), Chrétiens&Sida, HBO (Homos et BiEs d’Orsay), Fédération Sportive Gaie et Lesbienne (FSGL), Centre LGBT Paris / Île-de-France, les Front Runners de Paris, King’s Queer, l’Organisation Internationale des Intersexes (OII France, Francophonie et Europe), ELCS (Elus Locaux Contre le Sida), les Petits Bonheurs, Solidaires Étudiant-es, David et Jonathan, Front de Lutte LGBT, Mouvement Français pour le Planning Familial, PopinGays, association LGBTP de l’ESTP, association ALGO du Quai d’Orsay, Les enfants d’Arc-En-Ciel, la FIDL, MPF (musulman-es progressistes de France), HM2F (homosexuel-les musulman-es de France), Collectif Gais Lurons, RAINBHOPITAL, Pari-T, les OUTragés de la République, CentrÉgaux, G.A.R.ç.E.S., R.O.S.A., l’ARDHIS, Keep Smiling, OUTrans, ID Trans, Les Flamands Roses, les AmiEs du Bus des Femmes, Association des Communistes Unitaires, Carrefour de Chrétiens Inclusifs, le Collectif du XVIème, la Fédération Syndicale Unitaire (FSU).

le NPA, Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV), les Jeunes Écologistes, la Gauche Anticapitaliste (GA), le Parti de Gauche, le Collectif Fier-e-s et Révolutionnaires, Union Pour le Communisme (Lyon), CENTR’EGAUX – Association des Centristes et Démocrates Lesbiennes Gays Bi Trans et GayFriendly, Les Alternatifs, La FASE (Fédération pour une alternative sociale et écologique), OCML Voie Prolétarienne, la Fédération Anarchiste, le Mouvement des Jeunes Socialistes (MJS).

Supports
Alternative Libertaire, Solidaires Paris.

Read more...

France: For equality now, against discrimination all the time!

The French National Assembly began debating a Bill on marriage equality on January 29. The proposed legislation was announced on November 7 2012. The introduction of the Bill has sharpened the debate within French society around the rights of LGBT people. LGBT organisations and supporters have escalated the movement for equality, pushing for President François Hollande and the government of Jean-Marc Ayrault to go further with the legislation in addressing discrimination against the LGBT community more broadly. This is response is important in the context of criticisms that have been made against the movements for marriage equality in the US and Australia. Specifically thatthese movements promote the campaign for marriage equality while ignoring the other oppression and discrimination experienced by the LGBT community.

Below is a rough translation of the call for the Demonstration for Equality held on December 16. The call was initiated by the interassociation LGBT which brings together 58 LGBT organisations across France. The original in French is available here. Organisers estimated that 150, 000 people attended the December 16 mobilisation (the police estimated 50, 000 participants).

I'll be posting more material about the campaign in France soon. 

Call - Demonstration for Equality on December 16 in Paris 

For equality now, against discrimination all the time!

On November 7, the Bill on the opening of marriage to same-sex couples and the recognition of homosexual parents was presented to the Council of Ministers. Parliamentary hearings started the next day in the French National Assembly. Fourteen years after the passing of Civil Solidarity Pacts (pacte civil de solidarité - Pacs[1]), the legislative march towards Equality for all resumes at last.

France designates lesbian, gay, bi and the trans (LGBT) citizens as second-class citizens in refusing their equal access to rights - and the only reason is their sexual orientation or their gender identity. Eleven countries have opened the right to the marriage for same-sex couples, including six member states of the European Union. The only consequence was equal rights.

Opening marriage, and allowing these couples to adopt, as the bill in its current form envisages, is a step towards the lifting of some of the forms of discrimination which the LGBT community is subjected to today. It is a progress but we cannot be satisfied.

We claim that all of the measures which François Hollande proposed during his election campaign belong in this Bill. This law should not be circumscribed with a law on the marriage: it must make it possible for LGBT people to be regarded as full citizens on a purely individual basis, in couple, within their family and in the whole company. The members of Parliament must open medically assisted procreation (PMA) to all women, the access to adoption for non-married couples, and give to same-sex couples the possibility of creating a bond of filiation with their children which are the same  as those available to heterosexual couples, whether they are in or out of marriage, today. We also ask for a reform of the division of parental authority so that all children are protected and all parents recognized whatever the family structure.

François Hollande was committed to respecting the basic rights of the Trans people with a legislative reform allowing them to have identity papers that conform with their affirmed gender without having to undergo sterilization or medical treatment. We remind him of it’s urgency and necessity.

The law will put to an end institutional discrimination that victimises LGBT people and protects today all the remarks and behaviours of lesbophobes, homophobes, biphobes and transphobes. We do not forget that this daily discrimination is a factor of discomfort, in particular for young people who record high rates of suicide attempts, risk taking and HIV infection. Since the debate is in the public square, the most defamatory remarks on behalf of the opponents to this Bill is being brought to our attention. Those who rise against this social project are the same ones as those which were opposed yesterday to access abortion, the right to contraception, the recognition of the divorce and to Pacs.

This is why we will protest on December 16 for quality, for social progress but also against all discrimination, all hate speech and all the forms of obscurantism.

* * * First signatories: Inter-LGBT / Coordination Lesbienne en France / SOS-Homophobie / Centre LGBT Paris-IDF / ACTHE / ID-Trans’/ AIDES / Collectif Oui oui oui / Les Enfants d’Arc-en-ciel / APGL / ADFH / Homoboulot / ALGO / Embrayage / HomoSfèRe / Mobilisnoo / Comin-G / Gare ! / Flag ! / Popingays / Les Panthères Roses / La Nef des Fiertés / Les Enfants de Cambacéres / MAG-Jeunes LGBT / Les Effronté-e-s / Osez le Féminisme / Cadac / Collectif National Droits des Femmes / Ardhis / David et Jonathan / Beit Haverim / Carrefour des Chrétiens Inclusifs / Appel pour le Christianisme Social / Fédération l’Autre Cercle / Contact Paris-IDF / Association Equal / Bi-Cause / Collectif LGBT ADFE – Français du monde / GLUP / LGBT Nord-IDF / Dures à Queer / Gouines Comme un Camion / Caélif / Melting-Pomme Caen / LGP Lyon / LGP Montpellier-LR / LGP Bordeaux / Centre LGBT Normandie / AEC Toulouse / Les Bascos – Boarritz / LGP Lille / LGP Marseille / Coordination InterPride France / SOS-Racisme / LMDE / UFAL / CNAFAL / FIDL / UNL / UNEF / FSU / Union syndicale Solidaires / EELV / Jeunes Ecologistes / Jeunes Radicaux de Gauche / Centr’égaux / GayLib / La Diagonale / Jeunes Socialistes / HES / Collectif Fier-e-s et Révolutionnaires / Front de Gauche (PCF, Parti de Gauche, Gauche unitaire, Fase, Convergences et alternative, République et Socialisme, Gauche anticapitaliste) / NPA

Not-signatories but supporting and calling with the demonstration: FSGL / ASMF / Les Oublié-e-s de la Mémoire / Syndicat de la Magistrature / LDH / UNSA / SE-UNSA / UNSA-Education / CGT / Parti Socialiste / PRG

*******************
[1] Pacs are a form of civil union that was established under law in November 1999 which confers onto participants some of the legal rights granted under marriage including filing joint income tax returns and the impôt sur la fortune (wealth tax) being applied to the joint assests of couple. From it’s inception, Pacs have been accessed by larger numbers of opposite sex couples than same-sex couples, as of 2010 there were 9, 143 same-sex couples in a Pac, compared to 196, 415 opposite sex couples in a Pac.

Read more...

General Strikes and Demonstrations Against Austerity Tomorrow

Across Europe tomorrow (November 14) there will strikes and demonstrations against the austerity measures being driven by national governments, the European Commission, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank. Below is the call issued by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) Executive Committee on October 17 calling the mobilisations.

Declaration adopted by the ETUC Executive Committee at their meeting on 17 October 2012

1. The ETUC Executive Committee meeting on 17 October 2012 call for a day of action and solidarity on 14 November 2012, including strikes, demonstrations, rallies and other actions, mobilising the European trade union Movement behind ETUC policies as set down in the Social Compact for Europe. 
2. They express their strong opposition to the austerity measures that are dragging Europe into economic stagnation, indeed recession, as well as the continuing dismantling of the European social model. These measures, far from reestablishing confidence, only serve to worsen imbalances and foster injustice.
3. While supporting the objective of sound accounts, the Executive Committee consider that the recession can only be stopped if budgetary constraints are loosened and imbalances eliminated, with a view to achieving sustainable economic growth, and social cohesion, and respecting the values enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
4. Fiscal consolidation had a sharper effect than originally estimated by Institutions, including the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Indeed the IMF now admits that they grossly miscalculated the impact austerity measures have on growth. This miscalculation has an unmeasurable impact on the daily life of workers and citizens the ETUC represents, and brings into question the whole basis of austerity policies advanced by the Fiscal Treaty and imposed by the Troika. 
5. The Executive Committee note mounting opposition among citizens and workers in the countries concerned and reaffirm their support for affiliated unions fighting for decent working and living conditions. This situation results from the lack of coordination of economic policies and the absence of minimum social standards throughout Europe. In the context of free movement of capital, this gave free rein to competition between states, in particular in the field of taxation, labour costs and social conditions. 
6. They reiterate that social dialogue and collective bargaining are central to the European Social Model. They strongly oppose the frontal attacks on these rights, at national and European level. The ETUC Executive Committee urgently calls for immediate adoption and transposition of the European social partners agreements currently before Council. 
7. They recall that the Union is treaty-bound to “work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment”. They further recall that the ETUC’s support for the Lisbon Treaty was mainly predicated on the full application of those objectives. 
8. They note that discussions are currently under way among Institutions and governments about the desirability of further treaty changes. A change of direction is necessary and priority should be given to resolving the crisis in line with the three pillars of our proposed Social Compact for Europe, which is gathering increasing support. This is articulated around social dialogue & collective bargaining, economic governance for sustainable growth & employment, and economic, tax & social justice. 
9. They insist that active solidarity, social progress and democratic accountability must be an integral part of the European project. They consider as essential that a social progress protocol to be included as an integral and operative part of any new treaty. The ETUC will evaluate any new step in European integration on this basis.
Read more...

Chicago Teachers: As long as it takes to win a good contract

Elizabeth Schulte and Alan Maass
Socialist Worker
14 September 2012

UPDATE: On Friday afternoon, at a meeting of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) House of Delegates, CTU leaders said they had reached an agreement on what they called the "outlines" of a new contract. The details need to be finalized, they said, but they hope to have a proposal ready for delegates to vote on at a meeting on Sunday. If approved then, the contract would go to the entire membership for ratification, though classes could resume on Monday. The CTU House of Delegates voted on Sunday to not suspend the strike and to give delegates two days to hold discussions with the Union's 26,000 members about the draft agreement between the Union and the Chicago Board of Education.

STRIKING TEACHERS in Chicago walked the picket line for a fourth day on Thursday with raised hopes after leaders of their union said they thought they were closer to an agreement on a new contract.

But as Chicago teachers know full well, you can't trust Mayor Rahm Emanuel or his personally anointed millionaire school board to follow through on any promise unless they're forced to. Negotiations won't be over--or the strike either--until Chicago Teachers Union officials have an agreement in hand that they can share with the union's 26,000 members.

Emanuel has been gunning for the CTU since before his election as mayor in 2011. He thought he could intimidate and abuse the teachers into submission, and then flaunt their concessions to prove he was the new boss in Chicago.

But the teachers stood up to this bully. Last June, nearly 90 percent of all CTU members--and an incredible 98 percent of those who cast a ballot--voted to authorize a strike. When the time to walk came on September 10, teachers hit the picket line and haven't looked back. If union leaders are making headway at the negotiating table, it's because of this determined mobilization.

The CTU's House of Delegates was due to meet for an update on negotiations at 2 p.m. on Friday, and as talks broke up after midnight, there was no news of a deal. So teachers and their supporters will continue with daily pickets--and prepare for a mass rally on Saturday that they hope will show the full scope of support for the union. The demonstration will begin at noon at Union Park, at Ashland and Lake, west of downtown--the site of the very first of the mega-marches for immigrant rights in 2006 that shook American politics.

As one teacher said on a West Side picket line Thursday: "We've achieved more in four days of striking than in 10 months of negotiations. But it ain't over 'til it's over. We're standing strong until we see what's being offered--and not from the anti-union Chicago Tribune, but from our union. It's only by staying strong, continuing to mobilize support, and exposing the injustices in our educational system that we will win."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE STRIKE continued Thursday with energetic pickets lines in the morning at schools across the city--and then a demonstration of tens of thousands at a downtown Hyatt hotel.

Protesters focused on the Hyatt because Penny Pritzker, heiress to the Hyatt family fortune, sits on Emanuel's appointed school board--and her company has taken millions in funds from the city's Tax Increment Financing (TIF) system, basically a slush fund for the mayor to funnel taxpayer dollars to his developer pals, rather than give them to schools and poor communities, where the money is desperately needed.

All eyes are on this battle for Chicago's future--here in the city, and around the country--because it is so clearly about more than teachers' wages and benefits, as important as they are, but the future of public education.

Speaking on behalf of big business and the political establishment, the Chicago Tribune published the latest in a series of editorial rants Thursday arguing that Emanuel's war on the teachers was of historic importance: "Chicago Teachers Union officials aren't merely fighting City Hall. They're fighting the inevitability of education reform. They are denying the arc of history."

But teachers know a little something about history, too--and the high stakes in this struggle. On every picket line, they talk about the importance of their fight for themselves, their families and their students, but also for other educators. Donielle Lawson, who teaches special education at York Alternative High School, located inside Cook County Jail, told the Chicago Tribune: "Other schools and strikers around the country can realize we should no longer be bullied."

Lawson said she was looking forward to discussing the lessons of the CTU's struggle with her students inside Cook County. "They're all too familiar with bullying and societal injustices, so it would be a very easy conversation with them," she said. "They're all fighting cases right now."

The city has been cranking up its anti-teacher propaganda machine to full volume--and they have plenty of allies to call on among those connected to the Democratic Party political machine.

For example, a group of religious leaders published an open letter in the Chicago Sun-Times urging teachers to go back to work. "We do not side with the Mayor, the Chicago Public Schools, or your organization," the letter claimed. "We side with the 350,000 students who will be placed in harm's way if you lead Chicago teachers into a strike."

As the Chicago Reader's Ben Joravsky pointed out, "Of course, by writing this letter, they're very much siding with the mayor. Because if the union calls off the strike, they lose what little leverage they have to force the tough and powerful people who run this city to give them even a fraction of what they want."

This is the new favorite mantra for Emanuel and his supporters on the City Council: The teachers should go back to the classroom while union leaders meet with CPS officials to work everything out.

Only none of the 33 City Council alder-sheep who demanded a return to work in a letter to CTU President Karen Lewis have had anything to say about negotiations between teachers and the city since they began 10 months ago. Their first signs of interest date from the day the teachers went on strike.

That's yet more evidence of the importance of this courageous strike by Chicago teachers. In the last few days, they've done much more to focus attention, not only their own cause, but on the struggle to defend public education in general--for people around Chicago and the country.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE SAME goes for the chorus of voices suddently talking about failing schools in Chicago, and expressing concern about the students who attend them. But only now--after the teachers have gone on strike.

If these schools are failing, it's not because of the teachers, but because they've been starved of resources--right under the noses of city officials. As a direct result of supposed "reform" schemes, schools in poor neighborhoods have been underfunded until they are deemed "failing." Then, they are closed or "turned around"--or replaced by a charter or selective-enrollment school.

Last winter, the Board of Education unanimously voted to close or turn around 17 neighborhood schools rather than devote greater resources to them. Six of the schools were slated for takeover by the politically connected charter operator Academy for Urban School Leadership. In other words, they were slated to make a profit.

The schools left to die on the vine are in poor and disproportionately Black and Latino neighborhoods, of course. As thousands of protesters chanted at Wednesday's march at Marshall High School on the West Side, "Hey, Rahm, we're not fools--we won't let you ruin our schools!" Earlean Green, a member of the local school council at Marshall, described the twisted priorities of Emanuel and friends:

Why are the public schools paying for private schools? When our students go to charter schools, and they don't come up to par, the first thing they do is put them out. They send them back to the public schools, but they don't send the money with them. They keep the money. When they come back to the public schools, and they don't come up to par...they put the teachers out.

Rahm Emanuel and his friends aren't fighting for the schools our children deserve. They're fighting for an agenda of privatization, charter schools, high-stakes testing and busting teachers' unions, where the ultimate aim is to destroy public education.

Working-class Chicago is showing what side they're on. The latest in a series of polls, conducted by a generally Republican pollster no less, shows the CTU with far greater support than Emanuel and CPS--55.5 percent of people said they generally supported the decision of the CTU to go on strike.

Teachers--not politicians and for-profit schools pushers--are the best equipped to decide what public education needs to thrive. And in Chicago, teachers are taking a stand to make that a reality.

They need all the support we can give them--on the picket lines for as long as the strike continues, at the Saturday mass rally in Union Park, and in the weeks and months to come.

Read more...

Europe: Facing the “crisis of our time”

Henri Wilno
International Viewpoint
August 2012

During the 1930s, US president Herbert Hoover liked to say that recovery was “just around the corner”. During the current crisis and most especially in Europe it would be difficult to count the number of statements by leaders (Nicolas Sarkozy was a specialist at this) periodically announcing either the end of the crisis, or more prudently, for example after a European summit, that we are now on the right road.

The situation in June and July 2012 shows, if it were necessary, that nothing of the sort is true. After so many European summits presented as decisive, the Spanish bank crisis combined with the situation in Greece marks a new stage of the financial crisis in Europe.

At almost any time, there could be an acceleration of events in the Euro zone leading to a serious undermining of the single currency and a banking crisis. In this context, it is especially interesting to consider the possible trajectories of European construction.

The economic crisis cannot be reduced to the European crisis
An erroneous vision of the situation tends to be advanced by some economists and journalists: the current phase of the crisis would be linked to the financial difficulties of the Euro zone and this latter would imperil the whole of the world economy. Some leaders, notably those in the United Kingdom and US President Barack Obama, find it useful to project onto Europe the responsibility for the bad conjuncture in their countries. Thus the British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told the “Sunday Telegraph” on June 10: “our recovery – already facing powerful headwinds from high oil prices and the debt burden left behind by the boom years – is being killed off by the crisis on our doorstep.”
There is no doubt that the situation in the Euro zone amplifies the crisis but the latter is far from being summed up thus. In fact, as Alex Callinicos puts it in an article entitled “The crisis of our times” [1], there are three dimensions to the current situation:

• the weakness of US and European growth, showing that the initial causes of the crisis have not been surmounted: the accumulated weight of debt, uncertainties about the bank balance sheets, compression of wage demand;
• the paralysis of the main dominant classes of the Western countries torn by their divisions: ultra neoliberal Republicans vs. Democrats in the USA, divisions between countries in Europe;
• the end of the illusion that the emergent economies and notably China could come to the aid of the OECD economies.
  

The uncertainties about world growth have been confirmed by the new projections of the IMF published in mid July, 2012 which note that the recovery of the world economy is showing new signs of weakness.

The economic crisis cannot then be reduced to the European crisis. However, Europe certainly appears as the weak link in the current configuration of capitalism. The Euro zone is indeed experiencing the most calamitous growth of all the big economic zones (-0.3% in 2012, +0.7% in 2013 according to the IMF projections) and its recession in 2012, through the slowing up of its imports, weakens world trade and thus the activity of other countries. It could be added that its financial crisis (the situation of the banks, public debt) increases world uncertainty.

A structural crisis of the Euro zone
Michel Husson’s study "Political economy of the Euro system” analyses the current crisis of the Euro zone with regard to its structural contradictions. At the risk of being schematic, his reasoning can be summed up in three points:

1. The countries of Southern Europe have lost competitiveness because of high inflation of a structural nature. The latter stems from the process of catch-up (more rapid growth), the mode of training of employees in services and what he characterises in his text as a “distribution conflict” linked to income inequality.
2. The early years of the Euro allowed the countries of Southern Europe to benefit from lower real interest rates (that is, taking inflation into account) than the countries of the North and the possibility of “risk free” trade deficits. The situation changed with:
• the policy of wage squeeze in Germany introduced by the Schroeder government (with the Hartz reforms) which improved German competitiveness and thus strongly reduced that of its partners.
• the crisis and the policies implemented to deal with it, which have increased public deficits and the rate of indebtedness of states and seen the reappearance of external constraints through the interest rates the states have to pay to refinance themselves.
3. Resolving the debt problem would not deal with the structural difficulties resulting from the heterogeneity of the countries of the zone and the absence of sufficiently serious resources for a convergence policy (weakness of the community budget and so on).

These three elements are especially pertinent. We see now the consequences of the neoliberal turn of European construction. The European Union has always been in its very conception a project of capitalist integration but its development has involved a passage from “Keynesian” economic policies to a neoliberal mode of economic regulation. We can date this turn from the Single European Act, signed in 1986 and entering into force in 1987.

What potential trajectory?
There is however room for discussion around the conclusions that Husson draws from this analysis and concerning the potential trajectory of the EU. One senses some hesitations in reading the text. Husson specifies in his first paragraph that “there are only two responses adapted to the structural nature of the European crisis: either the breakup of the Euro system, or its radical refoundation. The others confine themselves to staggering the contradictions over time or programming a socially unacceptable regression”. At the end of the text he specifies: “the only coherent road is that of cooperative harmonisation. This would rest on a European budget based on a unified tax on capital incomes which would finance the necessary transfers (a harmonisation fund) and socially and ecologically useful investment”. He recalls correctly that the “sweet” variant of the dominant policies (in the manner of Hollande) prolongs the current situation and leads to decades of adjustment imposed on the peoples of Europe. And finally puts forward a variant based on a national but non-nationalist rupture with neoliberal capitalism (with a reference to the programme advanced by Syriza during the Greek elections of 2012).

The debate here goes back to those of nearly a century ago. Leon Trotsky examined thus the possible outcomes of the First World War: “ In the case of an “undecided” issue of the war, Liszt thinks the indispensability of an economic and military understanding of the European Great Powers would come to the fore against weak and backward peoples, but above all, of course, against their own working masses. We pointed out above the colossal hindrances that lie in the way of realizing this program. The even partial overcoming of these hindrances would mean the establishment of an imperialist Trust of European States, a predatory share-holding association. The proletariat will in this case have to fight not for the return to “autonomous” national states, but for the conversion of the imperialist state trust into a Republican European Federation.” [2]

We can discuss the concrete relevance of Trotsky’s analyses of the time. But the concerns which underlie them remain pertinent. Certainly, as has been said above, the European Union is a capitalist project, and that has been strengthened with the Single Act and the Euro. But this does not reduce the illusory, indeed dangerous character of national inflections.

In fact, the question is: how can Europe, and more particularly the Euro zone, survive the crisis? This crisis is a “big crisis”, “the crisis of our time” as Callinicos puts it. We could specify the different potential trajectories as follows, trying not to mix the possible with the desirable:

• the realist scenario today implemented in the “German” manner is that of an adjustment based on “social savagery” and Hollande’s scenario is only a variant of it
• these hard line scenarios have a rationality (contrary to what many critical economist think) and they can succeed;
• but they can also founder on national and/or social contradictions and end up with a redrawing or complete breakup of the Euro zone.
• the capitalist “cooperative and European" scenario is unlikely;
• the most probable progressive scenarios are seemingly national ones, but they are not without risk.

The dominant scenario risks break-up
Economists of a progressive Keynesian inspiration tend to stress the limits and illusions of the austerity remedies summed up today by the macro-economic policies advocated by the European Union, for which the Troika (ECB, European Commission, IMF) now constitutes the strong arm. It is indeed perfectly correct that austerity weighs down on activity and public income and thus makes deficit reduction more difficult. But leaving it at this would be a superficial analysis. The economist Costas Lapavitsas has tried to shed light on the rational core of the German policy: “By insisting that everyone must “become German” they [the German leaders] are basically saying that countries with deficits should accept permanent austerity while applying permanent pressure on their workers. They are probably hoping that this would lead to a new equilibrium at a lower level of income across Europe, and perhaps after several years there might be renewed conditions for general growth, somehow”. [3]

In fact, as Yves Salesse has pointed out, the EU is without any doubt a capitalist Europe but it is not “the Europe of capital” in the sense that the big European companies are not the motor force of its construction. Big European capital, financial but also industrial, is globalising and alliances between firms are based on this logic. Rapprochements sometimes take place between European firms, not seeking to constitute “European champions” but above all with regard to the state of the world market. Generally, the links of these firms with national territories grow more distant. A significant part of their profits are realised on non-European markets and their nationality only becomes important in periods of crisis: to obtain aid; to have their interests supported in international trade negotiations; to see their sales facilitated by a President or Prime Minster transformed into a commercial traveller. The recent decision by Airbus to set up an assembly site in the USA (in Mobile, Alabama) is emblematic in this respect. It is about limiting the risks of losses linked to variations in the exchange rate of the dollar, and easier access to Pentagon contracts thanks to the jobs created. Also, Alabama is a state where trade union organisation is rendered difficult by local legislation [4]. Yet initially Airbus was a typical case of a European project initiated in 1969 by the French and German governments (after the British withdrawal).
From this viewpoint, the idea of imposing a budgetary straitjacket on the peoples of Europe and the challenge to their social model is rational. A first experience has been had in Germany with the Hartz reforms mentioned above which have strongly improved industrial competitiveness at the price of significant social costs and increased inequality.

As Lapavitsas says, this scenario could well lead to a break-up of the Euro zone, even if the German bourgeoisie profits from its existence. If we make an analogy with the USA, at the end of the Second World War, the latter spent significant sums (through the Marshall Plan) building an international architecture which politically, militarily and economically suited them. One could imagine the bourgeoisie and the German state making a similar choice in Europe. That would suppose a little less austerity and more flexible rules for the functioning of the ECB and more so-called “stability” funds. That would limit, but not suppress (for the structural reasons given by Michel Husson), the risks of a redrawing or a break-up of the zone.

No European New Deal
The configuration of this possible rupture of the Euro zone would depend fundamentally on social resistance in the countries subject to enforced austerity policies. It is impossible to specify the modalities of this and the consequences which could be devastating for the zone as a whole. But for now, in line with the wishes of the dominant sectors of industry and finance, it is the hard line which prevails.

A European progressive “New Deal” which Michel Husson characterises as “cooperative harmonisation” appears to say the least improbable, as he says himself. There is for now no essential sector of the bourgeoisie which supports it and there is no effective pressure from the European labour movement in this direction. Certainly for the first time the European Trade Union Confederation has opposed a European treaty, rejecting the budgetary Treaty, characterised as a “permanent austerity treaty”. After the European summit of June 28-29, 2012, its general secretary Bernadette Ségol said: “The banks will perhaps be saved, but we see nothing which will save wage earners. The pact for growth envisages nothing new”. but there is a gap between such statements, more radical than in the past, and the preparation of movements of European employees as a whole. Movements which would go beyond days of action or demonstration tending to substitute for strikes and faced with which the governments are not ready to make the slightest concession (as has been shown in Spain and Portugal).

Thus to the great chagrin of those who see it as the sole rational solution, there will be no New Deal at the European level, without unexpected developments. And the radical opponents of neo-liberalism and capitalism are too weak and too uncoordinated at the European level to press radical solutions. The global justice movement is no longer capable of demonstrations like that in Genoa in 2001 which brought together youth and workers (and was subject to strong police repression). The movement of the indignant has for the moment serious difficulties in accumulating enough forces to regain the offensive.

Towards national crises?
There remains then the hypothesis of “big national crises” which lead, in some states, to a situation where those who rule can no longer govern as before and those they rule can no longer bear being oppressed as before. Among the European bourgeoisies there will be winners and losers from austerity policies and globalisation: the winners in the most internationalised sectors, the losers, for example, in the small and medium enterprises, some liberal professions and the state or regional bureaucracies. The challenge to social gains, the dismantling of the right to work, will weigh on all. Greece gives of a foretaste of what such a crisis could look like.

In such a situation several camps would face each other, as in Greece today: those ready to continue to play the card of austerity in the context of the EU, nationalists and anti-capitalists (with of course at the political level many intermediary nuances). The anti-capitalists should be in a position to exert weight and rally a social and political front, both through their radicalism and their ability to provide a solution in terms of political power and the management of society. For Europe, they should make themselves the bearers, as Michel Husson puts it, of “a unilateral rupture with the actually existing Europe in the name of another project for Europe”. That would suppose unilateral measures, in contradiction with the European treaties, both to improve living conditions and set up the bases of a social and ecological development, but simultaneously with the will to aid mobilisation in other countries, broadening the process begun in one state. All this without falling to quote Trotsky’s “Programme for Peace” again, into social patriotism: “it must not be forgotten that in social patriotism there is active, besides the most vulgar reformism, a national revolutionary messianism, which regards its national state as chosen for introducing to humanity “socialism” or “democracy,” be it on the ground of its industrial or of its democratic form and revolutionary conquests”. Because it is certainly another kind of Europe that needs to be built.

* Henri Wilno is a member of the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (NPA, France) and the Fourth International.
NOTES
[1] Which can be found on the site of the South African magazine Amandla!”: http://www.amandlapublis...
[2] 6. Leon Trotsky, “The Program for Peace” http://www.marxists.org/archive/tro...
[3] “Interview: Working people have no interest in saving the euro” http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id...
[4] “I think it’s extremely unfortunate that a company that has been as successful as Airbus with a fully unionized workforce is choosing to go to a ’right-to-work’ state to build that plant. It doesn’t make sense”, said Paul Shearon, Secretary-Treasurer of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers [[ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...

Read more...