Soirée autour des 100 ans de la revue « La Révolution prolétarienne »
▻https://nantes.indymedia.org/events/143513/soiree-autour-des-100-ans-de-la-revue-la-revolution-proletarienne
La revue La Révolution prolétarienne a atteint ses 100 ans d’existence en janvier 2025. À cette occasion, un livre retraçant le siècle de cette « revue qui n’a pas observé le mouvement ouvrier mais qui l’a vécu » a été publié en janvier aux éditions Syllepse. L’unité syndicale, l’autogestion, l’antifascisme,…
[Nantes] #Permanence Syndicale de la CNT44
▻https://nantes.indymedia.org/events/143039/nantes-permanence-syndicale-de-la-cnt44
Tous les premiers Jeudi du mois, retrouvez la CNT 44 et ses trois syndicats à #La_dérive (1 Rue du Gué Robert) à #Nantes pour une permanence syndicale. Questions, discussions, droits du travail, organisation des luttes, n’hésitez pas à venir nous rejoindre pour nous parler ! Les trois syndicats de…
Un #syndicaliste de la #Confédération_paysanne #assassiné en #Corse
▻https://reporterre.net/Un-syndicaliste-de-la-Confederation-paysanne-assassine-en-Corse
Le 17 mars, un paysan syndicaliste a été assassiné sur sa ferme, près d’Ajaccio. Âgé de 55 ans, Pierre Alessandri défendait corps et âme la paysannerie, en tant que secrétaire général de la Via Campagnola, ou Confédération paysanne corse. Il s’était par ailleurs illustré comme « lanceur d’alerte dans l’affaire des fraudes aux subventions [agricoles] européennes » sur l’île de Beauté, précise l’association de lutte contre la corruption Anticor.
« Plusieurs pistes sont exploitées […] pour déterminer le mobile de [cet] acte criminel qui a manifestement fait l’objet d’actes préparatoires », a déclaré le procureur de la République d’Ajaccio, qui évoque « trois coups de feu tirés dans le dos ». En avril 2019 déjà, la distillerie de ce fabricant d’huiles essentielles avait été détruite dans un incendie criminel. Une enquête pour « assassinat » a été confiée à la gendarmerie.
Dans un communiqué, l’association Anticor déplore une « tragédie » s’inscrivant « dans un climat de pratiques mafieuses et corruptives qui gangrènent le territoire corse ». La Confédération paysanne s’est quant à elle dite « sous le choc, empreinte d’une immense tristesse » : « Nous sommes dans l’incompréhension et la colère. Les paysan·nes et responsables syndicaux ne peuvent être ainsi pris pour cible. »
Alarmierende Zustände bei Tesla in Grünheide
▻https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/496019.alarmierende-zust%C3%A4nde-bei-tesla-in-gr%C3%BCnheide.html
15.3.2025 - Die IG-Metall-Bezirksleitung Berlin-Brandenburg-Sachsen informierte am Freitag über alarmierende Zustände bei Tesla in Grünheide:
Die IG-Metall-Bezirksleitung Berlin-Brandenburg-Sachsen informierte am Freitag über alarmierende Zustände bei Tesla in Grünheide:
Bei Tesla in Grünheide benötigen Mitglieder rund 21mal so häufig den Rechtsschutz der Gewerkschaft wie im Durchschnitt der IG Metall. Dies berichtet die IG Metall Berlin-Brandenburg-Sachsen. Grund für das hohe Aufkommen an juristischen Auseinandersetzungen ist das massive Vorgehen des Managements gegen die eigenen Beschäftigten. Tesla zweifelt in großem Umfang ärztliche Atteste an, verweigert die Entgeltfortzahlung im Krankheitsfall und behält Entgelt ein. »Mit diesem inakzeptablen Vorgehen treibt das Unternehmen immer wieder Kolleginnen und Kollegen in finanzielle Not«, sagt IG-Metall-Bezirksleiter Dirk Schulze.
Bei der IG Metall geht eine Vielzahl ähnlicher Fälle ein: Oft zweifelt Tesla in einem ersten Schritt rückwirkend Krankschreibungen von Beschäftigten an und fordert dazu auf, Diagnosen offenzulegen und die Ärzte von der Schweigepflicht zu entbinden. Oft folgt als nächstes der Einbehalt von Entgelt. Pfändungsfreigrenzen werden ignoriert, nicht selten wird kein einziger Euro überwiesen. Im Gespräch werden die Beschäftigten mit dem Verweis auf angebliche »Schulden« durch eine vermeintliche »Überbezahlung« unter Druck gesetzt. Dies soll sie dazu bewegen, ihren Arbeitsplatz aufzugeben und einen Aufhebungsvertrag zu unterzeichnen. Damit seien sie diese »Schulden« bei Tesla los. Bedenkzeit für eine juristische Prüfung des Vertrags wird oft verweigert. Das Angebot gelte nur, wenn sofort unterzeichnet würde, heißt es.
Dirk Schulze, IG-Metall-Bezirksleiter Berlin-Brandenburg-Sachsen: »Wir raten allen Beschäftigten bei Tesla, Aufhebungsverträge nie ohne vorherige Prüfung zu unterschreiben und sich mit juristischer Unterstützung gegen dieses Vorgehen zu wehren. Alle IG-Metall-Mitglieder können sich dafür auf unseren Rechtsschutz verlassen. Die vermeintlichen Überbezahlungen sind in fast allen Fällen nichts als haltlose Behauptungen. Allein im vergangenen Jahr haben wir mit unseren Mitgliedern fast eine halbe Million Euro von Tesla erstritten. Geld, das die Beschäftigten verdient haben und das sonst in der Tasche des reichsten Menschen der Welt gelandet wäre.«
»Ich fordere die Werkleitung in Grünheide auf, diese Praxis sofort einzustellen. Es muss Schluss sein mit der völlig unzulässigen Einschüchterung der Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Für die Betroffenen und ihre Familien ist es eine unglaubliche Belastung, wenn sie nicht wissen, ob sie im nächsten Monat genug Lohn bekommen, um ihre Miete zu zahlen. Das Vorgehen der Werkleitung ist nicht nur hochgradig unseriös und inhuman, sondern auch kontraproduktiv. Hohe Krankenstände bekämpft man nicht durch Druck auf die Beschäftigten, sondern durch bessere Arbeitsbedingungen. Unsere Umfrage zur Arbeitsbelastung hat klar gezeigt, dass hier dringender Handlungsbedarf besteht.«
Im vergangenen Herbst haben aktive Metallerinnen und Metaller in der Tesla-Belegschaft eine Umfrage zu den Arbeitsbedingungen durchgeführt, an der sich über 1.200 Beschäftigte beteiligten. Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse: 83 Prozent der Tesla-Mitarbeiter fühlen sich oft oder sehr oft überlastet. Nur jeder zehnte glaubt, die aktuelle Arbeitssituation bis zur Rente aushalten zu können. 91 Prozent der Befragten leiden unter körperlichen Beschwerden wie Kopf-, Nacken-, Gelenk- oder Rückenschmerzen. (…)
#Allemagne #travail #exploitation #syndicalusme #lutte_des_classes #Elon_Musk
Sans titre
▻https://bsky.app/profile/gorekhaa.bsky.social/post/3lho2nnsrae2n
▻https://piaille.fr/@le_pere_peinard/113967957299777796
"⚠️ Flash Info ⚠️Soutien à Siham Touazi : la répression syndicale continue#Syndicalisme #Répression #CGTÀ Neuville, Siham Touazi, syndicaliste CGT de l’EHPAD, comparaît pour la deuxième fois devant la justice après 133 jours de grève. Un
Übergang zur Kriegswirtschaft ?
▻https://www.unsere-zeit.de/uebergang-zur-kriegswirtschaft-4800209
Voilà une description du contexte politique européen par les communistes allemands (DKP). Le problème : ils ont raison en principe mais leur vue des choses est incomplète et leur stratégie politique en souffre au point où il n’y en a plus..
C’est quand même intéressant pour changer du baratin idéooigique manipulateur des grands médias.
7.2.2025 vonStephan Müller und Conny Renkl - Am vergangenen Wochenende hielt im Rahmen der 10. PV-Tagung in der Leverkusener Karl-Liebknecht-Schule Stephan Müller ein gemeinsam mit Conny Renkl verfasstes Referat zu den Problemen und Widersprüchen, denen sich der deutsche Imperialismus bei der Schaffung von „Kriegstüchtigkeit“ und beim Übergang zur Kriegswirtschaft gegenübersieht. UZ dokumentiert den Vortrag in gekürzter und redaktionell geringfügig überarbeiteter Form.
Die Frage nach dem Übergang zur Kriegswirtschaft zu stellen heißt nicht nur zu fragen, ob und wann der Krieg droht, sondern auch von welcher Art er sein wird, wer und was ihn verursacht und welche Form – zum Beispiel Handelskrieg, Regionalkrieg oder Weltkrieg – er annehmen wird.
Wir können davon ausgehen, dass es sich um keinen gerechten Krieg handeln wird, für den uns der deutsche Imperialismus „ertüchtigen“ will. Der Krieg wird auch nicht verursacht durch die Länder, auf die unsere Monopolbourgeoisie deuten lässt, also China oder Russland, sondern er wird verursacht durch das Monopolkapital selbst, durch den Zwang, zum Maximalprofit, durch den Zwang zu expandieren in schrumpfenden Märkten, in zunehmender Krisenhaftigkeit, aus der die imperialistischen Großmächte den Ausweg in der Neuaufteilung der Welt suchen.
Widerstand dagegen kommt dabei zunehmend aus dem Globalen Süden, von den Völkern in dessen Ländern, also den Arbeitern, Bauern und der nationalen Bourgeoisie, deren Interesse objektiv gegen den Imperialismus gerichtet ist.
Einen diffusen Widerstand gibt es auch in den imperialistischen und entwickelten kapitalistischen Ländern. Denn auch hier haben die Arbeiterklasse und große Teile des Kleinbürgertums und der Bourgeoisie objektiv kein Interesse am Krieg. Aber zum Beispiel bei den Auseinandersetzungen um die Sanktionen haben wir gesehen, dass sich die Zwischenschichten bei der gegenwärtigen Schwäche der Arbeiterbewegung der Monopolbourgeoisie unterordnen.
Murren gegen die massiven Schäden durch die Russland-Sanktionen ist kein Umschwenken auf eine Befreiungsmission vom US-Joch, sondern entspricht dem Murren des Lieferanten, dem die Monopole die Preise drücken, ein Murren, dass die „Großen“ schalten und walten wie sie wollen, auch wenn es den „Kleinen“ ruiniert.
Form des Krieges
Die Form der Kriegswirtschaft hängt ab von den jeweiligen Kräfteverhältnissen im Imperialismus. Die Aufstellung im Kampf um die Neuverteilung ändert sich mit der Entwicklung der Kapitale, der Macht und den Konstellationen, die sich daraus bilden. Ausgetragen wird der Kampf dann, wie Lenin es formulierte, „heute friedlich, morgen nicht friedlich, übermorgen wieder nicht friedlich“.
Im Kalten Krieg großes stehendes Heer, nach der Konterrevolution mobile Interventionskräfte zum schnellen Eingreifen und jetzt Pläne für eine Einführung der Wehrpflicht, militärische Infrastruktur, langfristige Stationierung im Ausland, sprich Besatzung wie in Litauen. Aber auch weitere Optionen sind im Blick, wie die Auseinandersetzung um die Atombewaffnung zeigt. Vieles deutet darauf hin, dass der Weg in einen Weltkrieg eine Option der Finanzoligarchien wird.
Dabei wird eine entscheidende Frage sein, ob der NATO-Block hält oder die zwischenimperialistischen Widersprüche zu einer Bildung neuer Allianzen führen. Dies wäre günstig nicht zuletzt unter dem Gesichtspunkt, dass die um Sozialismus und Unabhängigkeit kämpfenden Länder nicht einem geschlossenen Gegner gegenüberstehen. Sollen wir eine solche Entwicklung aktiv unterstützen? Wenn wir Palmiro Togliattis Gedankengang in seiner Rede auf dem VII. Weltkongress folgen, heißt die Antwort: Ja, allerdings in schärfster Gegnerschaft zur deutschen Monopolbourgeoisie.
Deswegen: „BRD raus aus der NATO!“ – das geht mit uns nur bei einer Senkung der Rüstungsausgaben. Nieder mit dem deutschen Militarismus!
Gesamtlage
Die Entwicklung der Form der Kriegswirtschaft folgt den Kräfteverhältnissen. Das heißt, der deutsche staatsmonopolistische Kapitalismus passt die Form der Kriegswirtschaft im Gesamtinteresse seiner Finanzoligarchie der veränderten Gesamtlage an, wie sie sich seit der Konterrevolution um 1990 entwickelt hat und jetzt wieder zu einer neuen Kräfteaufstellung kommt:
Der Neuverteilung der Territorien der ehemaligen Sowjetunion unter die imperialistischen Großmächte mit der Perspektive, sie zu Halbkolonien zu machen, stellte sich die dortige neu sich formierende herrschende Klasse entgegen mit der Übergabe der Regierungsmacht an Wladimir Putin. Der Kampf um die Unabhängigkeit Russlands konzentrierte sich bald auf die Ukraine. Es ist dabei auf die Unterstützung durch China angewiesen.
China stieg im Kampf um Unabhängigkeit und Sozialismus zur Weltmacht auf und setzt der imperialistischen Einkreisungspolitik Bündnisse mit Partnern entgegen, die im Widerspruch zur Hegemonie der USA stehen. Die Volksrepublik strebt ein System der kollektiven Sicherheit an.
Nachdem mit der Sowjetunion die politische Begründung der US-Hegemonie über die anderen imperialistischen Großmächte untergegangen war, soll die Begründung nun durch die Notwendigkeit von Containment und Rollback des chinesischen Einflusses ersetzt werden.
Auf dem Gebiet der Entwicklung der Produktivkräfte wird die Digitalisierung für die Gesamtentwicklung ähnlich grundlegend wie der Eisenbahnbau bei der Entwicklung des Kapitalismus in sein imperialistisches Stadium. Neue Großunternehmen entstehen in den USA und China auf größerer technischer und finanzieller Stufenleiter – mit Börsenwerten von mehreren Tausend Milliarden US-Dollar. Netzwerke zur Konzentration dieser Kapitalmassen sind in den USA mit einer Handvoll dominierender Digitalkonzerne entstanden und in China mit dem Aufbau entsprechender Unternehmen unter Kontrolle des Staates. Produktivkraftentwicklung ist zu einem entscheidenden Feld des Klassenkampfs im Weltmaßstab geworden.
Die USA-Finanzhegemonie wurde durch die von ihr geprägte weltweite Finanzkrise geschwächt.
Mit dem Ukraine-Konflikt verhindern die USA die Infragestellung ihrer militärischen Hegemonie, also der NATO. Das damit verbundene Sanktionsregime soll auch die politische und ökonomische Hegemonie aufrechterhalten.
Der Kampf zwischen den USA und den anderen imperialistischen Großmächten ist vollem Gang – Stichworte Handelskrieg und Nord-Stream-Sprengung –, wird aber überwiegend noch verdeckt geführt.
„Die auf Zusammenarbeit ausgerichtete Weltordnung, wie wir sie uns vor 25 Jahren vorgestellt haben, ist nicht Wirklichkeit geworden. Stattdessen sind wir in eine neue Ära des rauen geostrategischen Wettbewerbs eingetreten. Die größten Volkswirtschaften der Welt konkurrieren um den Zugang zu Rohstoffen, um neue Technologien und globale Handelswege. Von KI zu sauberer Technologie, von Quanten bis zum Weltall, von der Arktis bis zum Südchinesischen Meer – der Wettlauf hat begonnen.“
Ursula von der Leyen auf dem Weltwirtschaftsforum in Davos
Die Stellung des deutschen Imperialismus
In dieser Gesamtlage versucht der deutsche Imperialismus Grundlagen zu schaffen für die strategische Souveränität gegenüber den USA – technologisch, ökonomisch, militärisch und politisch. Er will die strategische Souveränität erreichen in Zusammenarbeit mit dem französischen Imperialismus im Rahmen der EU. Sowohl die deutsche als auch die französische Finanzoligarchie wissen, dass sie allein zu schwach sind, um mit den USA um die Neuaufteilung der Welt konkurrieren zu können. Das wurde nochmals ganz klar in Emmanuel Macrons großer Europa-Rede in der Sorbonne 2017, die mit Angela Merkel abgestimmt war.
Ein Erfolg dieser deutsch-französischen Pläne ist bis heute nicht sichtbar. Das ist zu erklären mit der Konkurrenzsituation zwischen den deutschen und den französischen Bank- und Industriekonzernen und ihren Staats- und Regierungsapparaten – im Zusammenspiel mit dem Einfluss der USA selbst, gegen deren Hegemonie die Pläne gerichtet sind.
Ein Beispiel ist die beendete EU-Karriere von Thierry Breton, einer Zentralfigur der deutsch-französischen Rüstungszusammenarbeit. Als Chef des französischen IT-Konzerns Atos hatte er mit dem damaligen Banker Macron die Fusion von Atos mit der Siemens-IT-Beraterfirma SIS organisiert zum zweitgrößten IT-Dienstleister in der EU. Dann wurde er zum Industrie- und Rüstungskommissar der EU befördert und Antreiber für die digitale Souveränität, was ihm natürlich die Feindschaft der US-amerikanischen Digitalkonzerne einbrachte. Für die neue EU-Kommission wurde Breton von Macron wieder vorgeschlagen, aber von Ursula von der Leyen abgelehnt und von Macron fallen gelassen.
Die IT-Firma Atos ist aktuell in Auflösung. In Auflösung scheinen auch die deutsch-französischen Projekte für EU-Clouds und der von Breton 2023 verkündete Plan, 20 Prozent der weltweiten Chip-Produktion bis 2030 in der EU zu haben. Ob seine Satelliteninitiative Erfolg hat, mit dem System IRIS2 eine Konkurrenz zu den in den USA besonders von Elon Musk betriebenen Satellitenunternehmen zu schaffen, ist offen – eher unwahrscheinlich, wird aber dafür entscheidend sein, ob die EU eine von den USA unabhängige militärische Internet-Infrastruktur bekommt.
In Deutschland ist vor allem der Porsche-Clan nicht willens und wohl auch nicht mehr in der Lage, die Kapitalmassen für die nötigen Investitionen in die technologische „Transformation“ der Volkswagen-Gruppe allein zu organisieren. An der VW-Gruppe zeigen sich beispielhaft die Krise und die Reaktion des deutschen Finanzkapitals im Zusammenwirken mit Staat, Politik und Medien.
Im deutschen Finanzkapital verschieben sich derzeit mit der Entwicklung der Produktivkräfte die Schwerpunkte von der autozentrierten Industrie zur IT-zentrierten Industrie – voran Siemens, SAP, Telekom und Bosch. Davon untrennbar entwickelt sich natürlich im staatsmonopolistischen Gesamtinteresse die Industrie, die unmittelbar schwerpunktmäßig Rüstungsgüter produziert – voran Airbus, Rheinmetall und KDNS. Ein Widerspruch in der derzeitigen Ausformung des Gesamtinteresses entsteht dadurch, dass die Monopole sowohl vom US- als auch vom chinesischen Markt abhängig sind.
Bedingte Unterordnung
Der Widerspruch soll – wie seit 1945 – vom deutschen Imperialismus weiter durch das bedingte Unterordnungsangebot an die USA mit Schwerpunkt Aufrüstung gegen Russland unterlaufen werden. Öffentlich sichtbar wird das in der medialen Diskussion der „Zeitenwende“ in den Rüstungsausgaben: Zeitenwende ja, aber mit möglichst viel EU-Anteil, wobei dann wieder gestritten wird um den jeweiligen Anteil für die deutsche oder die französische Rüstungsindustrie.
Der deutsche Imperialismus kann davon profitieren, dass er für den Gesamtimperialismus unter Führung der USA die Aufgabe übernehmen soll, die EU nach Osten maximal auszudehnen und gegen Russland auszurichten. Es gilt Russland so einzuengen und so zu zermürben, dass es keine Unterstützung mehr für China sein kann. Auch die Anstachelung zu einer „bunten“ Konterrevolution in Russland, wie sie schon in Belarus versucht wurde, gehört in dieses imperialistische Kalkül. In dieser Rolle als Vormacht im Osten hofft Deutschland das notwendige militärische Drohpotenzial aufbauen zu können – um dann auch bei der Neuaufteilung als starker EU-Partner Frankreichs wieder mitzureden.
Die deutsche Rolle als Führungsmacht in der EU soll dabei ökonomisch, politisch und militärisch ausgebaut werden. Noch bestehende Beschränkungen für den deutschen Imperialismus können infrage gestellt werden, was aber – Stichworte: Atomrüstung und Flugzeugträger – auf französischen Widerspruch stößt.
Mit einer derart deutsch-dominierten und für die USA nützlichen EU im Kreuz erhofft sich der deutsche Imperialismus, für eine gewisse Zeit gegenüber China eine scheinbar unabhängige Rolle spielen zu können. Die Bedenken der USA versucht man zu zerstreuen mit Hinweis auf die taktische Variante „Wandel durch Annäherung“ oder „Die Burg von innen sturmreif machen“ – wie es schon mit dem „Osthandel“ und der „Entspannungspolitik“ gelungen ist.
Zeitgewinn spielt eine Rolle, weil der Anlauf zur Weltmacht und Konkurrenz auf Augenhöhe mit dem US-Imperialismus durch „Souveränität“ einer deutsch-französisch dominierten EU bisher nicht erfolgreich ist für den deutschen Imperialismus. Eine alternative Linie, sein Gesamtinteresse durchzusetzen, ist aber nicht sichtbar.
Derzeit sichtbar ist die alte Linie des Anlaufs zur Weltmacht durch taktisches Wechselspiel zwischen Frankreich und den USA, die offenbar weiterverfolgt werden soll, aber mit wesentlich erhöhtem staatsmonopolistischem Mittelaufwand.
Dazu muss der deutsche Imperialismus in dieser veränderten Kräftelage der allgemeinen Krise seine politische Aufstellung ändern.
Kriegskeynesianismus
In der Etappe nach 1989 schien der harte Griff der allgemeinen Krise sich zu lockern durch die Expansionsmöglichkeiten nach innen und außen. Im Rennen um die Beute wurde die Parole „freier Markt“ ausgegeben. In der imperialistischen Konkurrenz stand die eher friedliche Phase – Aufteilung nach Kapital – im Vordergrund, was die Bundeswehr nicht hinderte, wieder international zu schießen und zu bomben. Die defensiv mit Kapitalverflechtungen gegen das Eindringen von US-Kapital konstruierte „Deutschland AG“ wurde aufgelöst, viel Kapital wurde zur Beutejagd freigegeben. In Deutschland war die Propaganda der Allmacht des freien Marktes unter der Marke „Neoliberalismus“ als Schuldenbremse in Verfassungsrang erhoben worden und hatte auch geholfen, die deutsche EU-Dominanz über Frankreich durch die EU-Schuldenregeln zu sichern. Auch hier zeichnet sich nun eine „Zeitenwende“ ab: Russland konnte nicht in Halbkolonien zerlegt werden, die Konterrevolution in China wurde zurückgeschlagen, das EU-Souveränitätsprojekt ist nicht vorangekommen.
Im September legte Mario Draghi nun der EU-Kommission seinen Bericht zur Wettbewerbsfähigkeit gegen USA und China, sprich zur Weltmachtposition vor. Die Vernetzung Draghis aus seiner Zeit als Chef der EU-Zentralbank und Retter des Euro „whatever it takes“ gewährleistet, dass er das Gesamtinteresse des EU-Finanzkapitals berücksichtigt.
Der Bericht verlangt, dass in der EU pro Jahr rund 800 Milliarden Euro zusätzlich investiert werden, um in Technologie, Energieunabhängigkeit und Rüstung gegen die USA und China zu bestehen.
Für Deutschland hieße das entsprechend dem wirtschaftlichen Gewicht etwa 200 Milliarden Euro pro Jahr, also zweimal den „Zeitenwende“-Betrag!
Die Reaktion aus Deutschland war seltsam leise, der Sturm im Medienwald blieb aus. Das Wirtschaftsministerium kommentierte sachlich, der Draghi-Bericht werde „voraussichtlich maßgeblichen Einfluss auf die Politikgestaltung und Schwerpunktsetzung der neuen (EU-)Legislatur haben“.
Draghi fasst offenbar die Sicht des EU-Finanzkapitals dahingehend zusammen, dass die gigantischen Investitionssummen und Umbauten des Staatsapparats für die Perspektive Weltmacht erforderlich sind, nachdem die bisherigen Pläne gescheitert sind.
Der Draghi-Bericht liefert die Grundlage für eine neue Propagandarichtung, mit der die Abwälzung der neuen gigantischen Milliardenlasten auf die Arbeiterklasse und die nicht monopolistischen Volksschichten als alternativlos verteidigt werden soll.
Die Finanzoligarchen, die die Gewinne aus ihren Monopolen nicht ausreichend in die neuen Technologien investiert haben, um gegen die Konkurrenten in den USA und China mitzuhalten, verlangen jetzt vom Staat die Mobilisierung der Draghi-Milliarden. Die Rechtfertigungsideologie soll wieder gewechselt werden von „neoliberal“ – das heißt der Markt soll alles richten – auf „Keynes“ – das heißt der Staat soll die in der Krise fehlende Nachfrage durch Schuldenaufnahme und Investitionen ausgleichen.
Der unter Sparzwang gesetzte Staat hat die Investitionen in die für die Produktivkraftentwicklung erforderliche Bildung und Wissenschaft nicht geleistet.
Der Staat hat in seiner Aggressivität, die Maximalprofite der Monopole zu sichern, nicht einmal mehr die Infrastruktur für die Mehrwertproduktion aufrechterhalten.
Das „Handelsblatt“, Selbstverständigungsorgan des Finanzkapitals, stellte in seiner Ausgabe vom 18. November 2024 im „Kommentar aus Berlin“ seiner Leserschaft die Dringlichkeit der Situation folgendermaßen dar: „Sechsjährige starten mit massiven Defiziten, weil sie keinen Kita-Platz hatten oder dort nicht gefördert wurden. Unsere 15-Jährigen sind bei Pisa jäh abgestürzt, die Zahl der Jugendlichen ohne Ausbildung hat einen traurigen Höchststand erreicht, und die vielen Migranten können nicht so integriert werden, wie es mit mehr Bildung möglich wäre. All das bedroht den Standort Deutschland mit zeitlicher Verzögerung mehr als die fehlende Infrastruktur. Wer mangels Personal keine modernen Maschinen entwickeln kann, braucht auch keine Straße, um sie zum Kunden zu bringen.“
Aber: Wie soll die EU, wie soll der deutsche Staat jedes Jahr zusätzlich hunderte von Milliarden mobilisieren?
Draghi selbst schlägt bereits eine Kombination von staatlichen und privaten Mitteln vor. Von der Leyen wurde auf dem berüchtigten Davoser Weltwirtschaftsforum deutlicher: In den EU-Ländern gebe es 1.400 Milliarden Spargelder privater Haushalte. Sie werde einen Plan für europäische Spar- und Investitionsprodukte vorschlagen, damit diese im Sinn des Draghi-Berichts nutzbar würden.
Das Wort Kriegs- oder Rüstungsanleihen hat sie dabei unseres Wissens nicht verwendet.
„Mit dem Kompass legt die Kommission ihre Wirtschaftsstrategie für die nächsten fünf Jahre vor. Diese Strategie ist einfach und lässt sich in einem Schlüsselwort zusammenfassen: Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.“
Stéphane Séjourné, Vizepräsident der EU-Kommission, bei der Vorstellung Plans zur Umsetzung des Draghi-Berichts. Darin werden drei Handlungsschwerpunkte gesetzt: Innovation, Dekarbonisierung und Sicherheit
Zyklische und allgemeine Krise
Im Getümmel um das Ende der Ampel-Koalition zeichnete sich schon die Umorientierung des deutschen Imperialismus weg von der Schuldenbremse ab.
Die gängigen Vorschlagsmuster des Politpersonals sind der deutschen Realität nicht mehr angemessen. Zur Realität gehört auch, dass die zyklische Krise die Symptome der allgemeinen Krise verstärkt.
Nach der Finanzkrise 2008 kam der deutsche Imperialismus nicht mehr in Schwung. 2018 sahen wir den letzten Höhepunkt der deutschen Industrieproduktion, 2020 den Tiefpunkt. Nach Ende der Pandemie-Maßnahmen zog die Nachfrage an, ging wieder zurück, zog wieder an, ohne einen Aufschwung auszulösen – die Industrieproduktion kam nicht mehr über den letzten Höhepunkt hinaus.
Die Zahl der Unternehmensinsolvenzen steigt, die Industrieaufträge sinken. Die Konsumnachfrage ist mager, selbst die nominalen Lohnerhöhungen werden nach den vielen Entlassungsmeldungen eher gespart.
Der Anschub für den Aufschwung aus den letzten Zyklen kam aus dem Export, vor allem in die EU, nach China und in die USA. In allen drei Regionen ist aber mit schwächerem Wachstum zu rechnen, politische Hindernisse stehen im Raum.
Die allgemeine Krise hat den acht- bis zehnjährigen Krisenzyklus deformiert, die Staatseingriffe auch in den Währungs- und Kapitalmarkt haben neue Krisenpotenziale geschaffen.
Die Kernbranche der deutschen Industrie, der Automobilbau, ist von sinkender Nachfrage getroffen. Gleichzeitig muss sie auf neue Technologie umstellen: alternative Antriebe und autonomes Fahren. Die Anforderungen sind unterschätzt und die Profite nicht investiert worden. An VW, Mercedes und BMW hängen die Weltfirmen Bosch, ZF, Conti, Schaeffler, Mahle und zahllose andere. Auch im Hightech-Bereich – von Siemens bis Intel – sinkt dadurch die Nachfrage.
Ob, wann und wie tief sich eine Krisen-Kettenreaktion in der EU und in Deutschland ausbreitet, wird auch von den im Draghi-Bericht genannten massiven staatlich subventionierten Investitionen abhängen.
Um die gigantischen Beträge zu mobilisieren, wird auch vom politischen Personal erwartet, dass es sich entsprechend orientiert.
Die Krise wird sich durch den zunehmenden Protektionismus der USA verstärken. Deshalb ist zu erwarten, dass sich zur Einigung über die Finanzierung der Draghi-Milliarden eine Koalition bildet, die eine Notsituation konstatiert und das Grundgesetz mindestens in der Frage der Schuldenbremse ändert.
Der „neoliberale“ Modus des staatsmonopolistischen Kapitalismus, das freie Rennen um die Beute bei der Neuaufteilung nach der Konterrevolution mit den Stichworten Globalisierung und Privatisierung, wird abgelöst durch einen autoritären Modus mit den Stichworten Sicherheit, Protektionismus und Industriepolitik, den wir in Deutschland als reaktionär-militaristischen Staatsumbau richtig charakterisieren.
Das relativ lockere deutsche Abfedern der Widersprüche mit den USA und Frankreich kann nach der Sprengung von Nord Stream und dem Rausschmiss von Breton bei der EU nicht weitergeführt werden.
Krise der „Sozialpartnerschaft“?
Auch das Abfedern der Widersprüche nach innen unter dem Titel „Sozialpartnerschaft“ ist infrage gestellt, wie sich an den Auseinandersetzungen bei VW zeigt. Dort zeigt sich auch: Je mehr sich die Krise entfaltet, desto deutlicher wird die Widersprüchlichkeit der SPD – je offener sie im Klassenkampf das Kapital unterstützt, desto mehr verliert sie an Einfluss in der Arbeiterklasse, ohne den sie aber ihren Wert für das Kapital verliert.
SPD-Pistorius steht an der Seite des Kapitals für NATO und Rüstung, fordert gemeinsam mit seinem Parteifreund und Zweiten Vorsitzenden der IG Metall, Jürgen Kerner, mehr deutsche Rüstungsproduktion und sichert damit die NATO-Einbindung des DGB ab, gleichzeitig demonstriert SPD-Stegner mit Wagenknecht dagegen. Petra Erler stellte auf dem Podium der Rosa-Luxemburg-Konferenz fest, dass die Mehrheit der Mitglieder ihrer SPD wieder zur Entspannungspolitik zurückkehren will.
CDU-Chef Friedrich Merz profiliert sich als gesprächsoffen für alle, die einen starken Staat wollen, mit dem der deutsche Imperialismus auf die Krisenentwicklung reagieren kann.
Gesprächsoffen ist Merz auch für eine SPD der Pistorius, Kerner und Nancy Faeser, die signalisieren, die Gewerkschaften im Griff zu haben auf dem Weg zum starken Staat, der Opfer hinsichtlich des Lebensstandards sowie demokratischer und sozialer Rechte durchsetzt.
Diese Bereitschaft, Opfer durchzusetzen für die Weltmachtstellung der von Deutschland geführten EU, wird das Kriterium sein für die Gesprächsbereitschaft von Merz. Dabei müssen Leute wie Höcke, die bereits jetzt den offenen Terror gegen die Nichtopferbereiten fordern, wohl noch außen vor bleiben. In den Reihen der Finanzoligarchie ist der Streit in vollem Gang über die Rolle, die der Sozialdemokratie noch oder den faschistischen Kräften schon zugedacht werden soll beim Abwälzen der ins Auge gefassten Lasten. Ob und inwieweit das dann gelingt, wird vor allem davon abhängen, ob eine wirkungsvolle Gegenbewegung derer zustande kommt, die die Opfer bringen sollen.
Wirkungsvoll wird sie in Deutschland nicht werden, solange die Kräfte, für die Pistorius, Faeser und Kerner stehen, den DGB im Griff haben.
Worauf müssen wir uns einstellen?
Ganz abgesehen davon, dass Kapitalismus per se und Imperialismus umso mehr Kriegswirtschaft ist – ihr Frieden, so Bertolt Brecht 1939, ist aus dem gleichen Stoff wie ihr Krieg –, gibt es natürlich Phasen, in denen relativer imperialistischer Frieden herrscht und Zeiten, in denen sich die Vorbereitungen für den offenen Krieg im militärischen Sinn verstärken. In diese Phase ist das imperialistische Lager um 2010 mit dem „Pivot to Asia“ – dem Schwenk gegen China – und dem damit zusammenhängenden Ukraine-Putsch eingetreten. Das zeigt sich jetzt mit gewisser Verzögerung auch im deutschen Imperialismus.
Wenn wir also vor diesem Hintergrund davon ausgehen müssen, dass das Lager des Imperialismus auf eine große – auch militärische – Auseinandersetzung zusteuert mit dem Ziel, China als Konkurrenten und als systemische Bedrohung durch den Sozialismus auszuschalten, zu unterwerfen, aufzuteilen, dann müssen wir fragen: Was ist aus Sicht der Imperialisten dafür notwendig und wie soll das erreicht werden? Die Variante, dass angesichts der weltweit wachsenden Stärke der antiimperialistischen Kräfte die Imperialisten „vernünftig“ werden und die Zeichen der Zeit erkennen, ist nach unseren Erfahrungen unrealistisch. Obwohl auch die Kapitalisten wissen, dass – je mehr Kapital akkumuliert wird – die Gefahr der Krise wächst, können sie nicht aufhören zu akkumulieren – und obwohl sie sehen, dass die Börse überhitzt, spekulieren sie munter weiter. Akkumulation, Krise, Krieg – das ist Gesetzmäßigkeit im Kapitalismus. Können sie China nicht besiegen oder totrüsten, werden sie sich gegenseitig totschlagen müssen, müssen sie die Welt gegeneinander neu aufteilen, kommt es zur Kannibalisierung der Imperialisten untereinander.
Diese Perspektive erfordert in der Tat eine Umstellung auf Kriegswirtschaft im Sinne einer Vorbereitung auf eine lang anhaltende militärische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Ziel, die Gegner über lange Zeit auszuschalten. Davon ist der deutsche Imperialismus derzeit noch weit entfernt. Pistorius hat das Jahr 2029 genannt für Herstellung der „Kriegstüchtigkeit“.
Im Faschismus bekam die Rüstung erst mit der Einführung der Wehrpflicht 1935 und dem Vierjahresplan von 1936 Umfang und Tempo. Der Krieg in seinen Zielen und seiner Strategie war selbst in groben Umrissen erst 1937/38 skizziert (Hoßbach-Protokoll vom November 1937).
Derzeit sind die wirklichen militärischen Großprojekte FCAS für den Luftkrieg und MGCS auf dem Boden für 2040 projektiert.
Wir vergessen aber nicht, dass es sich bei „Kriegswirtschaft“ auf kapitalistischer Grundlage nicht um gesellschaftlich geplante Wirtschaft handelt. Dietrich Eichholtz zeigte in seinem Grundlagenwerk „Geschichte der deutschen Kriegswirtschaft 1939 – 1945“ eindringlich, wie selbst im offenen brutalsten Weltkrieg die monopolistische Konkurrenz und selbst auch die Kollaboration von Monopolen der Kriegsgegner fortlebte.
#Allemagne #Europe #impérialisme #lutte_des_classes #syndicalisme #DGB
L’État face aux colères agricoles
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/L-Etat-face-aux-coleres-agricoles
Entre les 15 et 31 janvier 2025, les agriculteurs sont appelés à voter pour leurs représentants syndicaux au sein des Chambres d’agriculture. S’ouvrant dans un climat de revendications et de défiance tous azimuts, ces élections professionnelles sont l’occasion de se pencher sur un malaise agricole aux multiples dimensions.
#Société #syndicalisme #reconnaissance #agriculture #mobilisation
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/IMG/pdf/20250121_paysans.pdf
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/m-le-mag/article/2025/01/19/pierre-ferracci-president-du-paris-fc-et-homme-d-affaires-tout-terrain_65048
#Pierre_Ferracci, président du Paris FC et homme d’#affaires tout-terrain
Par #Yann_Bouchez
PORTRAIT Le président du modeste #club_de_football sera-t-il le premier dirigeant à pouvoir rivaliser avec le #PSG dans la capitale ? L’accord conclu à l’automne avec la #famille_Arnault lui donne trois ans pour y travailler. Un joli coup pour cet homme de #réseaux qui s’apprêterait, à 72 ans, à passer les rênes du #groupe_Alpha, le #cabinet_de_conseil spécialisé dans les #relations_sociales qu’il a fondé.
Présider un club de #Ligue_2, l’antichambre de l’#élite du football professionnel, n’est pas toujours une sinécure. Ce samedi 7 décembre au soir, il pleut à verse sur #Ajaccio. Dans les tribunes du stade Michel-Moretti, un millier de courageux, guère plus, est venu assister au match opposant l’#AC_Ajaccio au #Paris_FC (PFC). Entre deux chants corses couvrant le bruit de la pluie, des supporteurs locaux lancent, de temps à autre, des noms d’oiseaux visant les « Français » de l’équipe parisienne.
A 72 ans, Pierre Ferracci en a vu d’autres. Veste grise sur jeans foncé, cheveux clairsemés, le patron du Paris Football Club, lui-même né à Ajaccio, suit la rencontre en tribunes. Il s’est assis entre son fils François, directeur sportif du PFC, et un ex-dirigeant de l’AC Ajaccio. Le voilà presque comme un spectateur lambda ; ce soir-là, il a ignoré la loge dévolue aux dirigeants du club visiteur, trop excentrée.
Le plateau de coppa, lonzu et fromages corses est resté intact, tout comme la bouteille de champagne. Malgré tout, Pierre Ferracci, s’est régalé. Au coup de sifflet final, scellant une victoire des Parisiens sur deux buts gaguesques, il s’invite sur la pelouse. Sous la pluie battante, il serre des mains, tout sourire. A ses joueurs comme aux adversaires.
Changement de dimension
Pierre Ferracci est un patron de club heureux. Les récentes défaites n’y changeront rien. D’ailleurs, le PFC, actuel troisième du classement, peut toujours viser la montée en Ligue 1 en fin de saison. « Je suis heureux parce que j’ai l’impression d’avoir mis le club sur de bons rails », avançait-il, satisfait, avant le match face à Ajaccio. « De bons rails », l’expression frise la coquetterie. Car le septuagénaire, fondateur et dirigeant du groupe Alpha, spécialiste et leader du conseil en ressources humaines, vient sans doute de réussir l’un des plus beaux deals de sa carrière. Le plus retentissant, à coup sûr.
L’information a d’abord fuité dans le quotidien sportif L’Equipe, le 9 octobre. Une semaine plus tard, confirmation officielle : le Paris FC, modeste club de Ligue 2, jusque-là aux mains de Pierre Ferracci, accompagné d’un pack d’actionnaires, est en passe d’être racheté par la famille Arnault. Promesse, avec ces milliardaires, d’un changement de dimension. Et si émergeait enfin un « deuxième club de la capitale » capable, qui sait, de rivaliser un jour avec le richissime Paris Saint-Germain, sous pavillon qatari ?
Le 20 novembre, foin de bling-bling, c’est dans la cantine du centre de formation du PFC, à Orly (Val-de-Marne) que Pierre Ferracci et Antoine Arnault, patron de deux fleurons du groupe de luxe LVMH, le maroquinier Berluti et le spécialiste du cachemire de très grand luxe, commentent l’union. Face à eux, des dizaines de caméras et une centaine de journalistes. L’affluence, pour une conférence de presse du PFC, est inédite. L’aîné de la fratrie Arnault, 47 ans, fan de foot et… du PSG, prend des accents philanthropiques : « L’idée est de rendre à la société, à Paris, à notre pays, ce qui nous a été donné. » Une manière adroite, peut-être aussi, de faire oublier les dribbles du patriarche avec le fisc.
Un carnet d’adresses bien fourni
Pierre Ferracci savoure le moment. Avec gourmandise, il évoque les coulisses de l’opération, en se gardant de tout dévoiler. La décision prise « avec [ses] deux fils, à l’été 2023 », de « s’associer à des forces économiques plus puissantes que les [leurs] » pour viser la Ligue 1. La satisfaction d’avoir trouvé, ensuite, par le biais de la banque Rothschild, un investisseur français « alors qu’aujourd’hui les deux tiers des clubs de L1 et de L2 sont contrôlés par des capitaux étrangers ». « Un enjeu de souveraineté nationale », ose-t-il, tout en reconnaissant que ces dernières années, il avait réuni au capital du Paris FC, « à titre minoritaire » certes, des actionnaires venus de Bahreïn, des Etats-Unis, d’Arménie et du Sri Lanka.
Du montant du rachat, il ne dit rien ou presque. Il conservera 30 % des parts jusqu’en 2027, date prévue de son départ de la présidence du club. Agache Sport, la holding des Arnault, possédera alors 85 % du PFC, contre 15 % pour Red Bull – sous réserve que BRI Sports Holding, l’actionnaire anglo-sri-lankais, le seul qui résiste, accepte de vendre ses parts (7 %).
Jongler avec les sujets économiques, politiques et sportifs, voilà la marque de fabrique de cet homme de réseaux. Autoproclamé « de gauche » et « homme de compromis », ce patron tout-terrain évolue au carrefour de plusieurs mondes. L’entrepreneur, aujourd’hui à la tête d’un groupe fort d’un millier de collaborateurs et d’un chiffre d’affaires annuel supérieur à 140 millions d’euros, côtoie depuis des décennies le gratin des grands patrons, des syndicalistes, comme des dirigeants sportifs. Il déteste l’expression « homme d’affaires », trop « péjorative » à ses yeux.
Ses différentes activités lui ont permis de se constituer l’un des carnets d’adresses les plus fournis du Tout-Paris. Depuis vingt ans, il loue, au travers de sa société Alpha, une loge VIP au Stade de France – compter environ 200 000 euros à l’année. Il y invite les huiles du monde patronal et syndical. « Le foot, résume-t-il, c’est le sport le plus populaire de la planète. Il fédère beaucoup de personnes, d’états d’esprit différents. J’aime ça. »
« Il était très militant »
Le sport, pourtant, a d’abord occupé une place annexe dans sa vie. Car, avant tout, il y eut les affaires. Certes, dans les années 1960, gamin à Ajaccio, Pierre Ferracci allait voir les matchs du Gazélec, le club de foot des gaziers et électriciens corses. S’il en est resté un « supporteur historique », cela relevait en partie, à l’époque, du tropisme héréditaire.
Albert Ferracci, son père, instituteur et ancien résistant, fut une figure éminente en Corse du Parti communiste. Sa mère, Rose, également enseignante et syndicaliste, partageait les mêmes engagements. Le soutien au Gazélec s’est imposé comme une évidence. Mais, niveau loisirs, le petit Pierre préfère encore, durant ses vacances d’été, les parties de chasse sous-marine du côté de Suartone, un village dans le sud de l’île, près de Bonifacio, où habite la famille du côté paternel.
Doué à l’école, Pierre Ferracci monte à la capitale et mène des études d’économie et d’expertise comptable à l’université Paris-Dauphine. L’un de ses profs s’appelle Jacques Attali – on y reviendra. Déjà, l’étudiant porte plusieurs casquettes. Il adhère aux Jeunesses communistes – il prendra vite ses distances avec le #PCF – et à l’#UNEF, syndicat étudiant marqué à gauche. « Il était très militant mais pas gauchiste du tout », se remémore Paul-Antoine Luciani, un ami de la famille, figure #communiste et ancien adjoint à la #mairie d’Ajaccio.
Rapports cordiaux avec Vincent #Bolloré
Le jeune homme tisse des liens avec la #CGT. La figure de son père, très respecté chez les communistes, est un atout qu’il n’est pas besoin d’inscrire sur son CV. Précieux pour lancer sa carrière. Au début des années 1980, il rejoint un petit cabinet d’expertise-comptable, Maréchal. Très vite, il grimpe les échelons, en prend la tête. Les #lois_Auroux, en 1982 et en 1983, favorisent les négociations salariales et élargissent le rôle des comités d’entreprise (CE). #Pierre_Ferracci flaire le bon filon.
Son groupe, #Alpha, qui voit le jour en 1983, d’abord avec le cabinet #Secafi, s’impose assez vite sur cette niche très rentable ; la CGT deviendra un de ses principaux clients, avec le syndicat des cadres #CFE-CGC plus récemment. Le cabinet de conseil travaille aujourd’hui pour environ 2 000 comités sociaux et économiques (#CSE). Le groupe s’est diversifié : il s’occupe aussi du reclassement des salariés, après un plan de licenciement. Un conflit d’intérêts, s’offusquent des concurrents du secteur qui reprochent à Alpha de jouer sur les deux tableaux, #syndical et #patronal. « La plupart du temps, on modifie à la marge les plans de licenciement. Donc l’accompagnement des salariés licenciés, c’est la suite logique », répond Pierre Ferracci.
Grâce à son activité, il est l’un des #patrons les mieux informés de l’état de santé des grandes entreprises françaises. L’expert du #dialogue_social cultive une proximité avec un nombre incalculable de patrons. Il y a eu les #Corses, comme Jean-Cyril Spinetta, PDG d’Air France (1997-2008), ou Jean-Marie Colombani, directeur du Monde (1994-2007). Et puis des figures du #CAC_40 et capitaines d’industrie, parmi lesquels le spécialiste du textile Maurice Bidermann (mort en 2020), l’ancien sidérurgiste et ex-ministre Francis Mer ou encore Vincent Bolloré.
Pierre Ferracci connaît le milliardaire conservateur breton « depuis longtemps ». « Dans les années 1990, j’ai même réussi à lui faire rencontrer, lors d’un repas, Louis Viannet, le secrétaire général de la CGT. » Et d’ajouter, facétieux : « C’était à l’époque où Vincent Bolloré avait une image un peu plus sociale qu’aujourd’hui. » Il a conservé des rapports cordiaux avec l’industriel : « Mais on parle plus de football et de #Canal que du #JDD et de #CNews, si c’est ça que vous voulez savoir. »
Donateur du candidat d’En marche !
Pierre Ferracci n’a cessé de tisser son réseau, tous azimuts. Son étiquette d’expert des questions sociales est un précieux sésame. En 2007, au début de la présidence Sarkozy, il accepte d’être membre de la commission #Attali sur la libération de la croissance. Beaucoup, à la CGT, tiquent. Peu lui importe. Le Corse aime le rappeler aux journalistes : c’est Emmanuel Macron, alors banquier chez #Rothschild et rapporteur général adjoint de la commission, qui a glissé son nom. « Manu », comme il l’appelle en privé, le tutoyant, est depuis vingt ans l’un des amis de son fils aîné, #Marc_ferracci, économiste devenu ministre sous les gouvernements Barnier puis Bayrou.
Etudiants à Sciences Po, Marc Ferracci et Emmanuel Macron ont préparé l’#ENA ensemble. Les révisions s’organisaient parfois dans le chic appartement que loue aujourd’hui encore Pierre Ferracci près du jardin du Luxembourg, à Paris. En 2017, l’homme d’affaires sera d’ailleurs l’un des donateurs du candidat d’En marche !, ce qui ne l’a pas empêché, par la suite, de critiquer publiquement l’actuel chef de l’Etat, avec qui il conserve des relations « respectueuses et amicales ». Insaisissable Pierre Ferracci. Sous la présidence #Hollande, en 2014, il est nommé à la tête du Conseil national éducation économie, une structure visant à favoriser le dialogue entre le système éducatif et les entreprises. Il a également été membre du Conseil d’orientation pour l’emploi.
« Pierre, c’est un pont entre plusieurs mondes, courtois, bon vivant », résume le consultant en stratégie sociale Antoine Foucher, qui a appris à le connaître lorsqu’il travaillait au Medef, vers 2012-2013. « Je ne suis jamais pour la politique de la chaise vide, justifie Pierre Ferracci. Là où il y a moyen de faire passer ses idées, j’y vais. » Son mantra : que les choix économiques n’écrasent pas les questions sociales. Ses détracteurs dénoncent des compromissions, lui vante les « compromis équilibrés ».
Débuts catastrophiques au Paris FC
C’est le football qui va lui permettre d’étoffer encore ses réseaux. Au début des années 2000, le conseil général de Seine-Saint-Denis et la ville de Saint-Ouen demandent à son groupe un audit du Red Star, avant de le sonder pour qu’il reprenne les rênes du club. L’affaire n’est pas conclue, mais elle lui donne des idées. En 2007, Guy Cotret, dirigeant du Crédit foncier, fait entrer Pierre Ferracci dans l’actionnariat du Paris FC, alors en National, le troisième échelon français.
Le Corse sympathise avec des dirigeants et des personnalités du ballon rond, comme le mythique entraîneur Arsène Wenger ou le journaliste Didier Roustan. « Le football lui a permis d’élargir son carnet d’adresses avec des personnalités qui ne sont pas forcément celles qu’il rencontrait habituellement à travers son activité », résume Guy Cotret. Qui, en 2012, se fait évincer par Pierre Ferracci de la tête du club. « Il avait mis au pot plus que moi, 1 million d’euros environ, se remémore le président déchu et fâché à l’époque. Il voulait garder la main. C’est un chef d’entreprise, il y a une part d’autoritarisme qui n’est pas anormale. Mais l’affaire s’est conclue en bonne intelligence. »
Les débuts de la présidence Ferracci au Paris FC sont catastrophiques. Le club est relégué. Les entraîneurs valsent les uns après les autres. La venue comme conseiller de son ami le journaliste Charles Villeneuve, ex-président du PSG rencontré par l’intermédiaire d’#Alain_Minc, est un échec. Le projet, avec Jean-Marc Guillou, un ancien joueur de l’équipe de France qui a entraîné par la suite la Côte d’Ivoire, de faire venir des jeunes joueurs africains, ne prend pas non plus. « Ça m’a vacciné d’entrée, ça c’est sûr », observe Pierre Ferracci avec le recul. Depuis plus de dix ans, il ne jure plus que par la formation locale et la richesse du bassin parisien. « Il croit à ce projet et a une vision claire de ce qu’il veut faire », salue Jean-François Martins, ancien adjoint aux sports à la mairie de Paris.
Accord critiqué avec le #Bahreïn
En douze ans de présidence, Pierre Ferracci a professionnalisé le PFC. Sans parvenir à lui faire goûter à la Ligue 1. Un centre d’entraînement et de formation a été inauguré à Orly en 2019. Le budget du club, l’un des plus gros de Ligue 2, se situe désormais autour de 30 millions d’euros. Pierre Dréossi, figure connue de la Ligue 1 et manageur général du PFC de 2015 à 2020, loue un patron de club qui a su « trouver des partenaires financiers ».
En 2015, ce fut d’abord Vinci comme sponsor – un groupe que le cabinet Secafi connaissait bien. Puis le Bahreïn en 2020, à l’époque pour 25 millions d’euros et 20 % du capital du club – et 2 millions d’euros annuels pour être sponsor maillot. L’accord a suscité son lot de critiques, d’autant que le prince Nasser Ben Hamed Al Khalifa, à la tête du fonds bahreïni, est accusé par plusieurs ONG d’actes de torture. « Vous avez au Bahreïn une synagogue, une église catholique, une église orthodoxe et beaucoup plus de liberté pour les femmes qu’au Qatar, donc je n’avais pas de problème avec le Bahreïn », balaie cet athée revendiqué – « je suis très croyant : je crois que Dieu n’existe pas » –, qui apprécie peu de recevoir des leçons.
Pierre Ferracci reconnaît d’ailleurs sans mal avoir essayé, « dans les années 2014-2015 », de recruter le géant russe #Gazprom comme sponsor : « En octobre 2015, j’ai même eu un rapide échange avec #François_Hollande, #Vladimir_Poutine et #Alexandre_Orlov [ambassadeur de la Russie à Paris] à ce sujet. » Aucun accord n’a été trouvé, mais la rencontre lui a rappelé l’époque où Alpha avait des bureaux à Saint-Pétersbourg et à Moscou.
Ces dernières années, avant le rachat par #les_Arnault, il a réussi, grâce à son seul entregent, quelques « coups ». Comme faire de Raï, l’ex-star brésilienne du PSG, pas vraiment désireuse de travailler avec les Qataris, un ambassadeur du PFC. Ou de rendre gratuite la billetterie du stade Charléty, l’enceinte du Paris FC, aux tribunes souvent aux trois quarts vides – cela a un peu changé ces derniers mois. Fin novembre 2024, il a nommé son ami #Michel_Denisot au conseil d’administration du PFC. L’homme de télé, ex-président du PSG, est aussi un ancien de Canal+. Le dirigeant du PFC milite d’ailleurs pour qu’un jour la #chaîne_cryptée et le football français renouent leur longue alliance, interrompue ces dernières années. En vain pour l’instant.
L’affaire de ses villas
Au cours des dernières semaines, la BBC, le New York Times ou le Washington Post l’ont sollicité pour des interviews. Flatteur, même pour cet habitué de la presse. S’il est intarissable sur les mille et une nuances du monde syndical, les petites ou grandes histoires du football européen, il l’est beaucoup moins, en revanche, sur ce qu’il considère relever de son intimité. De son goût pour les bolides, il n’a jamais rien dit. Rien non plus sur ses revenus – un peu plus de 750 000 euros déclarés auprès du fisc pour l’année 2018, selon nos informations.
L’affaire de ses deux villas et de sa piscine près de #Suartone, en Corse, qui lui ont valu une longue bataille judiciaire et 1 #million_d’euros d’amende pour un permis de construire non respecté, l’agace encore. S’il a pu conserver les #villas, il n’a pas digéré les nombreux articles écrits. « Une conséquence de ma relation avec Emmanuel Macron », estime-t-il à propos de cette #attention_médiatique. Mais, même sur ces polémiques, le verbe s’emporte rarement. « Il est assez insondable, Pierre, observe Jean-François Martins, l’ex-adjoint parisien, c’est assez déroutant. Il n’est pas surexpressif, même s’il dit ce qu’il pense. »
Le ton affable et le goût revendiqué pour le dialogue social de Pierre Ferracci ne convainquent pas tout le monde. Plusieurs ex-salariés du groupe Alpha décrivent, sous couvert d’anonymat, un patron « autocrate » et « un management de la tension ». Simple aigreur de collaborateurs licenciés ? Pas sûr : l’inspection du travail s’est émue, à plusieurs reprises, au mitan des années 2010, du manque de dialogue chez Secafi-Alpha lors de plans de réorganisation, avec des #syndicats_internes informés « au compte-goutte ».
En 2015, un fichier des ressources humaines listant des dizaines de salariés avec des remarques désobligeantes et parfois personnelles fuite. #Scandale dans le groupe. « Il y a eu des sanctions, ces pratiques n’existent plus », assure Pierre Ferracci. Et d’ajouter : « Le groupe Alpha n’est ni une entreprise parfaite ni, compte tenu du modèle social qu’elle a mis en place, un groupe qui doit être l’objet de toutes les critiques, tant s’en faut. »
Des mystères demeurent
Au sein du Paris FC, depuis ses débuts compliqués, tout le monde reconnaît l’implication de Pierre Ferracci. Il assiste à la plupart des matchs. Mais quelques mystères demeurent. Combien d’argent a-t-il mis dans le club depuis près de quinze ans ? « Beaucoup, beaucoup », sourit-il. Mais encore ? « Ça, je ne le dirai jamais. » Malgré nos relances, il ne précise pas, non plus, à quel prix le club a été racheté – « ça n’a pas grande importance ». D’une formule, il reconnaît tout de même : « C’est une très belle #valorisation. » Et ajoute qu’il est « ravi que tous les actionnaires qui [l]’ont suivi depuis le départ n’ont pas perdu d’argent mais en ont gagné » avec la reprise par les Arnault. Lui compris, évidemment.
Au sujet des nouveaux propriétaires, Pierre Ferracci l’assure : il ne connaissait pas personnellement la #famille_Arnault avant le printemps, au début des négociations. Avec son groupe Alpha, il avait pourtant eu à gérer, dans les années 2000, deux dossiers sensibles liés à LVMH. D’abord, la fermeture contestée de la Samaritaine, où son cabinet Secafi avait été très critiqué par des salariés l’accusant d’avoir joué le jeu de la direction. Ensuite, le rachat (d)#Les_Echos par #Bernard_Arnault.
Antoine Arnault confirme n’avoir, avant le printemps 2024, que « croisé » le président du PFC « dans différentes réceptions ou événements liés à nos vies professionnelles ». Mais, depuis le printemps, ils ont appris à se connaître et à s’apprécier. Le patron de Berluti salue des #négociations menées « avec une grande intelligence et une grande patience ». « Après, nuance le nouveau propriétaire du Paris FC, c’est quelqu’un qui a aussi ses idées et qui n’en démord pas, et va négocier de manière extrêmement déterminée. Ce n’est pas un enfant de chœur, Pierre Ferracci. » C’est dit comme un compliment.
Le casse-tête du stade
Ces dernières semaines, Antoine Arnault, habitué aux tribunes VIP du Parc des Princes, a assisté à des matchs de son nouveau club. Même si l’enceinte du Paris FC n’a pas de loges, il a pu y côtoyer du beau monde. « Pierre Ferracci est quelqu’un qui a une très grande intelligence des gens et qui arrive à se les mettre dans la poche, jauge-t-il. Quand je vais à Charléty et que je croise aussi bien Philippe Martinez que Pascal Obispo… Il réussit à réunir des gens d’univers très différents et à les faire dialoguer. Dieu merci, avec Martinez, ce n’est pour l’instant que pour parler foot ! »
Cette année, Pierre Ferracci a promis de passer la main à la présidence du groupe Alpha. D’ici à l’automne, il souhaite créer un fonds de dotation pour soutenir des actions liées à « l’éducation des tout-petits », un sujet cher à ce fils d’instits. Sa casquette de président du Paris FC, pour trois ans encore, devrait bien l’occuper.
Les #chantiers ne manquent pas. Il y a cette montée en Ligue 1, dont il rêve depuis des années. L’agrandissement du centre d’entraînement, à #Orly, qui paraît sous-dimensionné au vu des ambitions des nouveaux propriétaires. Et puis, surtout, le casse-tête du stade. #Charléty, avec sa piste d’athlétisme et ses tribunes ouvertes aux quatre vents, n’est pas l’écrin rêvé. Il faudrait le réaménager, si la Ville de Paris l’accepte. Afin de pouvoir accueillir les célébrités qui devraient se presser en tribunes, pour voir jouer le club alliant désormais le savoir-faire du président Ferracci à l’argent des Arnault.
Une guerre civile - Elizabethtown, USA
▻https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/116023-000-A/une-guerre-civile-elizabethtown-usa
C’est une observation sur le terrain à la base de l’analyse décrite ici : ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1093379
Le film raconte comnent une bande de fanatiques religieux de droite dépourvus de connaissances en sciences, histoire et politique prend le contrôle des institutions éducatives de la région.
119 min, disponible jusqu’au 13/02/2025
En Pennsylvanie, plus d’un an avant la victoire de Donald Trump, une immersion exceptionnelle dans la campagne d’un scrutin local décisif pour l’éducation publique, au plus près des militants de l’extrême droite et de leurs adversaires.
À Elizabethtown, petite ville conservatrice et rurale de Pennsylvanie aux apparences paisibles, une bataille politique acharnée se profile. Son enjeu, pourtant très local, est de taille : à l’automne 2023, les électeurs vont être appelés à désigner cinq nouveaux membres sur les neuf, tous républicains, que compte le conseil scolaire, instance détenant le contrôle de l’éducation publique dans « E-Town » et ses environs. Après des mois de débats virulents sur les affectations budgétaires et les livres de la bibliothèque, cinq personnes en poste depuis longtemps ne présentent pas leur candidature. À l’extrême droite du parti, les fondamentalistes chrétiens, qui détiennent déjà quatre sièges, espèrent remporter la majorité, conformément au mot d’ordre lancé par Steve Bannon, l’ex-conseiller de Donald Trump, après la défaite de ce dernier dans les urnes, et l’échec de l’assaut contre le Capitole : reconquérir la Maison-Blanche en s’emparant par la base de tous les échelons du pouvoir. Face à eux, le Parti démocrate et ses alliés républicains dits « modérés » lancent eux aussi leur campagne. De part et d’autre, on s’efforce de mobiliser par le porte-à-porte, la communication intense sur les réseaux sociaux et les meetings, souvent organisés dans de petites églises autour de pasteurs engagés. Mais en parallèle, convaincues que leur cause est non seulement légitime, mais aussi sacrée, les petites mains de cette droite extrême qui se sent le vent en poupe se préparent à la défendre, si nécessaire, par tous les moyens…
Veillée d’armes
À juste distance, sans aucun commentaire, mais avec la volonté de comprendre et de raconter ce qui se joue aujourd’hui aux États-Unis, Auberi Edler (Le plus grand Lavomatic du monde – Berwyn, USA) s’est immergée au fil d’une année dans ce microcosme de campagne, au plus près de militants – et, surtout, de militantes, car les femmes semblent en première ligne dans le combat – persuadés, dans les deux camps, que la survie de leur monde et de leurs valeurs est en jeu. De fait, leur foi commune en la patrie, la liberté, la religion, nourrit des visions radicalement différentes. Mais alors que les fondamentalistes chrétiens haïssent la presse et les médias, la réalisatrice a pu convaincre certains de ses porte-parole locaux de se laisser filmer au quotidien. En suivant les rencontres privées et les débats publics – dont ceux, éloquents, de la commission scolaire au cœur du scrutin –, mais aussi un hallucinant meeting des ténors nationaux de l’extrême droite trumpiste, interdit aux journalistes et protégé par des militants équipés d’armes de guerre, son documentaire offre un aperçu aussi passionnant que terrible de l’"état de l’Union", ou plutôt de la désunion américaine.
Réalisation Auberi Edler
Pays France
Année 2024
#USA #politique #élections #syndicalisme #lutte_des_classes #mouvement_ouvrier #éducation #culture
Why Elites Love Identity Politics - An interview with Vivek Chibber
▻https://jacobin.com/2025/01/elite-identity-politics-professional-class
Le déclin du parti démocrate aux États Unui est le résultat des défaites syndicales et de l’abandon conséquent des classes laborieuses par le parti. Dans un pays organisé en communautés religieusesn on ne gagne pas d’élection avec le seul soutien de quelques NGOs identitaires financé par les riches. Il n’y aura pas de progrès social sans mouvement ouvrier conscient de son rôle de représentant de sa classe.
Interview by Melissa Naschek - The Democratic Party at every level spent years embracing identity politics that mostly served the interests of professionals, argues Catalyst editor Vivek Chibber. We need a return to class.
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism? Would that end sexism?” As the memories of Hillary Clinton shimmying and cackling during the 2016 presidential election fade, this quote from one of her campaign rallies has an unusual durability. Just as significant as her loss to Donald Trump, her victory over Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary reshaped center-left politics for a decade and established identity politics as a standard tool in the Democratic Party belt.
On the latest episode of the new Jacobin Radio podcast Confronting Capitalism, Vivek Chibber, professor of sociology at New York University and editor of Catalyst: A Journal of Theory and Strategy, examines the specter of identity politics that has haunted the Democrats during the last decade. Chibber explains how identity politics promotes strategies and policies that primarily address the interests of elites rather than the vast majority of working Americans.
Identity politics has roots in 1960s fights against racism and sexism. But according to Chibber, the fracturing of the civil rights coalition, deindustrialization, and the collapse of organized labor shifted the agenda away from working-class issues toward a project of professional-class uplift. This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Melissa Naschek
As we’re still sort of in this postelection, what-the-hell-just-happened mode, one thing I’ve been thinking about a lot is the conversation that’s developing around identity politics.
For basically a decade, not only was identity politics central to Democratic Party center-left politics, but you couldn’t even criticize it without being smeared as a racist, a sexist, whatever term would work to instantly discredit any criticism while shutting down any critical thought of what that criticism represented. And now that Trump has won again, suddenly everybody’s talking about what a problem identity politics is.
Vivek Chibber
Right. So in order to be able to understand or analyze identity politics, you’ve got to first define it. You want to define identity politics in as neutral a way as possible, so that you’re not seen to be building your criticisms of it into the definition. We want a definition that most people can recognize as being legitimate.
Now, how do most people understand identity politics? Well, I would say there are a couple of things that people associate with it. The first is a focus on discrimination and disparities as being at the essence of race domination.
Focusing on disparities means you look at any occupation, any phenomenon, like housing or medical care, and you ask, Do blacks and whites get equal outcomes? What about Latinos and whites? Similarly, with discrimination, you want to find out if people are getting equal access to goods and services.
The second element is a focus on representation. Do we see black and brown faces and presences in social institutions at a level proportional to their population? These things together — representation, disparities, and discrimination — are probably what most people think of when they think of identity politics.
So why would anybody criticize it? We criticize not because these things don’t matter but because they are most important to and for elite sections of minority populations.
Take the issue, for example, of disparities. Fewer blacks own homes within the middle class than whites do within the middle class. Look at graduation rates. Fewer blacks and Latinos graduate than whites do. Look at corporate boardrooms. There are fewer black managers and women managers than there are white managers or male managers.
Fair enough. Why should anybody have a problem with that line of inquiry? The issue is that, across a number of phenomena, it’s not the disparities in jobs or wages or housing that matter but the very availability of them.
Take wages, for example. You might see at the lower ends of the job market, say at Walmart, that blacks get lower wages than whites do. That’s true. But if you solve that problem, will it take care of the quality of life and the life opportunities for black Americans or Latinos? If you move them from, say, $13 an hour to what whites are getting, which is, say, $15 an hour, will it solve the problem? Well, it makes it better, but it absolutely doesn’t solve the problem.
Why, then, is there such a focus on these disparities if solving them doesn’t solve the problem? It’s that they loom largest for the elite sections of the population, because they’ve already achieved an appreciable standard of living. What they want to get is the full value of their class position. Whereas for the lower rungs, for the working class, they’re not trying to get the full value of their class position. Their problem is the class position itself. Solving the problem of disparities for people in the lower rungs of the job market doesn’t solve their basic dilemmas, because for them the problem is the job itself, the quality of the job itself, the availability of the jobs themselves.
So if you agree, as most people do, that identity politics has to do with disparities and representation, then the problem with identity politics is not that it doesn’t touch the lives of minorities. It definitely helps them somewhat. But it’s hardly a solution. It most directly touches the lives of a tiny elite section of minorities. To move beyond that and deal with the quality of life and life chances of the vast majority of racial minorities, you have to go beyond disparities and look at the actual availability of social goods, not the current distribution of different races, taking that availability for granted.
Once we’ve defined it in this way, it’s possible to analyze it in terms of where it comes from, why it’s so popular, etc. And that’s what we ought to be pursuing next.
Melissa Naschek
The Democratic Party has become almost synonymous with identity politics. How did the Democrats get to this point?
Vivek Chibber
Let me start by agreeing that Kamala Harris didn’t run on identity politics. So why is her loss being attributed to identity politics? Is it untrue?
She didn’t run on identity. In fact, compared to Hillary Clinton, Harris steered clear as much as she could from identifying herself as a woman and as a person of color and —
Melissa Naschek
Right. Trump even tried to race-bait her.
Vivek Chibber
Yes, and she didn’t take the bait. So that observation is true, that she didn’t run on it.
Nevertheless, it is also true that identity politics played a big role — although not a deciding role — in her defeat. The deciding role was economic issues. Largely, it didn’t really matter that she didn’t run on identitarian terms. She was going to lose anyway because of economic issues.
But make no mistake: even though the association with identity didn’t cause her defeat, it was a big factor. And to ignore that would be a big mistake.
So how did she and her party become so closely identified with identity politics, and what role did it play? First of all, even though she steered clear of it, the party has been propagating it in a very aggressive way over the past six or eight years. So dropping it at the eleventh hour didn’t fool anyone. And that’s why Trump’s ads were so effective in attacking her as somebody pushing identity politics down people’s throats — the Democrats had been doing it for eight years already.
As with so many things in our political moment, it goes back to the initial Bernie Sanders campaign. The Democratic Party’s answer to Bernie Sanders’s propagation of economic justice and economic issues was to smear him as somebody who ignored the plight of what they love to call — their new term — “marginalized groups,” which is people of color, women, trans people, all matters dealing with sexuality. This was their counter to the Sanders campaign, and they’ve used it assiduously now for eight years.
So, if in the last two months they decided to pull away from it, who do they think they’re fooling? Literally nobody. And that’s why the turn away from identity politics failed, because it just seemed so ham-handed and insincere. Nobody bought it.
As for the deeper question about the roots of identity politics in the Democratic Party, I think it’s a historical legacy in two ways. The first is an obvious one. Coming out of the 1960s, when the so-called new social movements emerged, the Democrats were the party that upheld and supported those demands. Even when they were demands for the masses, not just for elites, this party supported them — unlike the Republicans, who were the party that resisted the feminist movement and the Civil Rights Movement. So that’s one historical legacy.
The second legacy is slightly more subtle, which is that, coming out of the New Deal era, the most important electoral base of the Democrats was the working class, and this class was overwhelmingly located in urban centers, large cities, because that’s where the factories were. After the ’80s, the geographical location of that electoral base didn’t change, it was still cities, but the cities changed. Whereas cities used to be the place where blue-collar workers and unions were based, by the early 2000s, cities became reorganized around new sectors — finance, real estate, insurance, services, more high-end income groups.
The Democrats were still relying on the cities for their votes, but because the cities’ demography had shifted, it had a profound effect on the electoral dynamics. Affluent groups became the base of the party, and race and gender became reconceptualized around the experiences and the demands of those affluent groups.
So the Democrats were depending on a much more affluent voting base than they had in the past. At the same time, organized pressure from working-class minorities and women was declining because of the defeat of the union movement, and the main organizations taking their place in the Democratic Party were the nonprofits and business.
Take the issue of race. In the high tide of liberalism, the black working class had a voice inside the Democratic Party through the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the trade unions, and they brought anti-racism into the party through the prism of the needs of black workers. When the unions are dismantled and trade unionism in general goes into decline, who is voicing the concerns of blacks? It’s going to be the more affluent blacks and black political officials that have come up through the post–civil rights era.
And those politicos, by the 2000s, are spread all across the country. There’s a huge rise in the number of black elected officials, mayors, congressmen, etc. And they now no longer have any reason to cater to working-class blacks because workers are politically disorganized. The political officials end up captured by the same corporate forces as the white politicians — but they get to have the corner on race talk.
By the 2000s, race talk and gender talk has been transformed from catering to the needs of working women and working-class blacks and Latinos to the more affluent groups who are the electoral base of the Democratic Party in the cities. And even more so by the politicos who now have increased in number tremendously, aided by the NGOs that do a lot of the spadework and consultancy for the party. What’s missing is 70 to 80 percent of those “marginalized” groups who happen to be working people.
So the Democrats are the party of race, the party of gender — but race and gender as conceptualized by their elite strata. That’s the historical trajectory. And that’s why, within the party, they leaned on this distorted legacy, because it was a form of race politics that fit with elite black interests.
Melissa Naschek
Can you explain further what the civil rights movement was fighting for and why this vision of racial justice didn’t survive the 1960s?
Vivek Chibber
This is a very good example of two different ways of approaching the question of race. The version that has been buried was in fact promoted by Martin Luther King Jr himself and his main lieutenants, especially A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin. Both of them were crucial in pushing for an agenda in the civil rights movement that went beyond simple political rights to insist on what you might call economic rights for black Americans. And famously, the March on Washington was a “march for jobs and freedom,” not just for political equality.
Randolph wasn’t an isolated figure in the trade union movement in his insistence on achieving racial justice through economic demands. The CIO had been pushing this since the 1930s and 40s, and it was very deep inside the Democratic Party by the ’60s.
Why did it go so deep into the party? Not because elite blacks were pushing it, not because black electorate politicians were pushing it — there weren’t that many of those. It was because black workers were able to find a voice for themselves and some political influence through the trade union movement. The CIO probably did more than any other political organization for working-class black Americans.
It wasn’t just Randolph and Rustin but also King. It’s important to remember King came out of the Christian socialist tradition himself. All of them insisted then that the anti-racist agenda has to also be an agenda of economic redistribution, of having jobs, of having housing, of having medical care. It must be this broad agenda.
Now, two things happened here that were crucial. There isn’t a lot of scholarship on this, so we have to rely on anecdotes and what little analysis there is. But Bayard Rustin famously said that, after the Voting Rights Act was passed, the black middle class largely dropped out of the movement.
Why did that happen? Probably because they had got what they wanted — they got the ceiling on political participation lifted. They had the promise of political equality. But if we turn to economic demands, they were much less interested. They already had decent economic resources. They were much less interested in fighting on that front. But these were the very issues that were really pressing for the vast majority of black Americans — housing, medical care, employment, decent education. And none of this could be achieved without economic redistribution.
The problem that Rustin and King face after 1965 is not just that the black middle class drops out of the movement. The problem is that once you change the focus from political rights to economic redistribution or economic expansion, the degree of resistance from the ruling class also changes. Capitalists will be more likely to give you political rights because that doesn’t directly affect their economic power. But once you start making demands that actually require economic resources, the resistance is also going to be greater, which means your strategy has to change.
So the problem is, first of all, that one chunk of your movement — the black middle class — has dropped out just when the resistance from the business community is going up. Your coalition has narrowed. Second of all, there’s no way a fight for redistribution will ever be won by the black working class alone. Even if you could organize all the black workers, the fact of the matter is that, in 1965, black Americans comprise around 12 percent of the population. It’s a very small minority of workers going up against the most powerful ruling class in the world. In order to have any chance of succeeding against this class, to the point where they’re willing to give you your economic goals, you also have to bring in the white working class. There’s no way around it.
So even if all you’re worried about is the fate of black Americans, you have to turn it from a black movement to a poor people’s movement. Because if you don’t bring in the white workers, your race goals will not be met. That’s what King realized. Even if you’re just concerned about race justice, you now have to be a universalist. You have to be somebody who puts class politics as the instrument toward race justice.
But they come to this realization at the worst possible moment. The unions are starting to go into decline, progressive forces are on the defensive, austerity is setting in. Eventually, the black elites take over. Up until the mid-1980s, the Congressional Black Caucus was still a somewhat social democratic force. But after the ’80s, black politicians largely become beholden to corporate interests themselves.
By that point, the King-Rustin vision of race justice has been replaced by the black elite and the black middle-class version of race justice, which leaves black workers, and later Latino workers, out of the picture altogether. And you get what we today call identity politics.
Melissa Naschek
In the ’70s, the labor movement started to go into decline, and what began to replace it were nongovernmental organizations, sometimes called nonprofits. What role did the replacement of labor unions with NGOs play in the rise of identity politics and the elite capture of racial justice?
Vivek Chibber
It has played a role. There is a view, and it’s pretty popular in the press these days, which paints NGOs as the culprit, as if these are the entities that have pushed for this kind of narrow identitarian agenda. I would not put it quite that way. I would say they’re the foot soldiers, but the generals are and have always been the large donors. This will never change. As long as the American political system is run on money, the basic direction of both parties is going to be set by big money. And that’s the case right now as well.
The way I would understand it is that even during the New Deal era, and even when unions had some power, the Democrats were always beholden to the corporate class. It’s just that, because labor had some real leverage, business had to take their interests into account. Even though the Democrats were a corporate-dominated party, they had to give some room to labor just out of a practical necessity — and their main patrons, the capitalist class, were willing to do so. That’s the moment at which a different conception of race justice, that it fundamentally has to do with the needs of working people, became the dominant one.
After the 1980s, because the unions are in decline, the corporate dominance of the party is unchecked. Because it’s unchecked, the demands for working-class interests of any kind — black, white, women — are now pushed to the background. Consequently, you have the reconceptualization of race and gender along elite lines, an agenda set by elite women and elite minorities.
This is where the NGOs come in. Once corporate donors have set those basic parameters, you have to articulate a program and electoral strategy consistent with that corporate vision of race justice and gender justice. Who do you turn to? You don’t turn to the unions. First of all, they’re disappearing and, anyway, you’re happy they’re not there. You don’t want them around.
What you turn to is organizations that use the language of race and justice but whose articulation of it is consistent with the suburban voters and high-income voters you’re catering to. That’s the nonprofits. That’s what they’re all about.
They’re also foot soldiers in a second sense. You don’t have unions anymore to do door knocking, to do your propaganda campaigns. The Republicans have the church. Who do the Democrats have? It used to be the unions who did the legwork for you. They’re gone. Now the nonprofits step in to some extent because they have the manpower to help you with the electoral work. ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] was a great example of this in the 1990s.
These are the people, then, who you turn to for the day-to-day electoral work and articulation of your program. And they are filled with kids coming out of East Coast liberal arts colleges and the Ivies. They don’t want to go into the corporate sector because it’s evil. They want to do do-goody kind of work. The whole appeal of nonprofits to college graduates is they think they’re doing God’s work fighting for social justice. But crucially, the elite conceptualization of race and gender fits naturally with their own class instincts. They’re true believers. And there’s nothing better than having well-paid true believers doing your legwork for you because you don’t have to micromanage them.
So there’s really no question of NGOs ever calling the shots. What they do is they take advantage of an opening and they push it. I don’t want to in any way ignore their role. It’s really important. Nonprofits have done untold damage to what’s called progressive politics. But they are simply walking through a door opened to them by the real holders of power, the corporate class.
Melissa Naschek
Now we’re at an interesting point where the Democrats have used this strategy to great success, at least in crushing the Left. But it’s having a huge negative impact on the perception of the party and its willingness to fight for the downtrodden. Given how discredited identity politics has been, at least in the way the Democratic Party has practiced it, what kind of relationship should the Left have to identity politics?
Vivek Chibber
The Left should very aggressively and actively fight against social domination of any kind, whether it’s along the lines of gender, race, or sexuality. But it has to do it in a way that expands beyond the interests of the wealthy and actually addresses the interests of working people, whether it’s working women or working-class minorities.
The Left should take advantage of this opening to restore race and gender justice to what it was in its glory days in the 1960s, when it was actively a component of the working-class movement. This was when the Left actually moved the needle on racism and sexism in this country, when it actually affected the lives of millions upon millions of racial minorities and women.
I think people like Bernie Sanders and union leaders like Sara Nelson and Shawn Fain — who’s been behind the incredible resurgence of the United Auto Workers — are already doing this work. They are saying that we need to address the incredible race and gender disparities in this country. But the way we do it is by building cheap housing that’s high quality, by making health care a right, by addressing the fact that poor schooling and poor jobs lock people of color into poverty for generations. And the way out is not by confining ourselves to increasing representation and combating discrimination, but rather by addressing the quality of the jobs and the availability of basic goods.
To do that, we have to extricate the movements from the grips of the professional classes and the elites more generally. It’s been so long. There was a time when socialists used to look with contempt at the attempts of narrow elites to take over these movements. My dream is for the Left to regain the moral confidence and the social weight to do that again. The only way that will happen is if socialists become the voice of the Left rather than academics, politicos, nonprofit spokespeople, and media celebrities. And these socialists need to come from these communities of working people, women, and minorities, because they will have the confidence to tell those more bourgeois figures to step back. These newer leaders will come from those sectors of the population that they’re fighting for.
We have to continue to promote working-class candidates in elections. We have to continue to try to build trade unions. We have to continue to make sure that they are the ones expressing the demands along these race and gender lines, so it doesn’t come from professors, from media celebrities, from politicians, because they will always steer it toward narrow elite ends.
#USA #politique #élections #syndicalisme #lutte_des_classes #mouvement_ouvrier
Ces #syndicats qui combattent l’#extrême_droite dans leurs rangs | #StreetPress
►https://www.streetpress.com/sujet/1736868396-exclusions-dialogues-dilemme-syndicats-extreme-droite-RN-com
L’annonce a provoqué un coup de tonnerre dans le petit milieu des #syndicalistes de l’Assemblée nationale avant les fêtes. Au Palais Bourbon, la section de la confédération chrétienne #CFTC a nommé à sa direction Rémi Scholtz, attaché parlementaire affilié au député du Rassemblement national (#RN) Timothée Houssin. L’info, révélée par Challenges, a déclenché une levée de boucliers chez les autres mouvements de l’Hémicycle et un casse-tête pour la CFTC. Déjà, car la confédération n’est pas sûre que l’homme soit adhérent… « On ne sait pas quoi faire, peut-être qu’il n’a pas encore été intégré dans nos fichiers, mais cela nous met en porte-à-faux avec les autres syndicats de l’Assemblée nationale. Si son adhésion est confirmée, on traitera la question avec attention », assure son président Cyril Chabanier. La CFTC a pris position contre le RN en 2022, mais ne souhaite pas exclure ses militants tant qu’ils ne soutiennent pas ouvertement le programme du parti lepéniste ou tiennent des propos racistes. « Les collaborateurs parlementaires font un métier difficile, qui mérite d’être défendu, et tous peuvent se syndiquer chez nous. Nous ne demandons jamais à nos adhérents leur couleur politique. Par contre, s’ils prennent des positions qui vont à l’encontre des valeurs de la CFTC, nous les exclurons sans aucun problème », certifie-t-il.
C’est vrai que quand on devient « vieux·vieille », on a tendance à se replier vers une citadelle faite de souvenirs ...
▻https://www.infolibertaire.net/le-syndicalisme-de-charles-piaget
Figure du syndicalisme de lutte des années 1968, le parcours de Charles Piaget est incarné par la grève emblématique de Lip en 1973. Des pratiques d’auto-organiation et d’action directe trancent avec le respect de la légalité bourgeoise. Mais Charles Piaget porte également un socialisme autogestionnaire avec un projet de société qui se construit dans le bouillonnement des luttes sociales.
Créer un droit interprofessionnel d’organisateur syndical
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/Creer-un-droit-interprofessionnel-d-organisateur-syndical
La création d’un droit syndical interprofessionnel permettrait de renforcer la présence sur les territoires de délégués syndicaux, qui auraient pour vocation de prendre en charge le travail de soutien à la défense et à l’organisation collective des salariés dépourvus de syndicat sur leur lieu de travail.
Rétablir et créer des mécanismes de négociation protecteurs pour les salariés
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/Retablir-et-creer-des-mecanismes-de-negociation-protecteurs-pour-les-s
Les récentes réformes des règles de la #négociation collective ont eu tendance à en faire un instrument d’ajustement de la relation salariale à la compétitivité des entreprises. Il convient au contraire de la repenser dans une logique de protection et d’acquisition de droits des salariés.
Medef/Cfdt : C’est pas classe !
Pour qui ne comprendrait pas bien le concept de « collaboration de classe » l’appel* pathétique co-signé le 17 décembre dernier par, dans l’ordre alphabétique (puisqu’on est entre amis !) la Cfdt, la Cftc, la Cgc, la Cpme, Fo, le Medef et l’U2p est un exemple frappant.
▻https://www.communisteslibertairescgt.org/Medef-Cfdt-C-est-pas-classe.html
Vieilles branches
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/Vieilles-branches
Une longue #enquête de cinq années nous apprend comment vieillissent et résistent encore les plus militants des #ouvriers de Sochaux, une fois retraités.
#Société #syndicalisme #résistance #vieillesse
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/IMG/pdf/20241216_baudelot.pdf
Le groupe Medvedkine nommé d’après Alexandre Medvedkine, inventeur d’un « ciné-train » parcourant l’URSS pour filmer les gens et projeter le film illico, le #groupe_Medvedkine s’est d’abord concrétisé à Besançon, de 1968 à 1971, autour de l’usine textile Rhodiacéta . Puis autour de l’usine Peugeot de Sochaux, de 1970 à 1974. et c’est à ce second groupe Medvedkine qu’appartint #Christian_Corrouge et qui cause sur 20 pages dans le dernier #Cheribibi, le n°13.
▻https://www.cheribibi.net/les-numeros/sommaire-numero-13
Causerie avec Christian Corouge - Ouvriers, cinéastes, tous en chaîne !
« Moi, tu vois, je suis ajusteur. J’ai fait trois ans d’ajustage. Pendant trois ans, j’ai été premier à l’école, dans mon CET… Et puis qu’est-ce que j’en ai fait ? Au bout de cinq ans, je peux plus me servir de mes mains, j’ai mal aux mains. J’ai un doigt, le gros, j’ai du mal à le bouger. J’ai du mal à toucher Dominique le soir. Ça me fait mal aux mains. La gamine, quand je la change, je peux pas dégrafer ses boutons. Tu sais, t’as envie de pleurer dans ces coups-là. Ils ont bouffé mes mains. J’ai envie de faire un tas de choses et puis, j’me vois maintenant avec un marteau, je sais à peine m’en servir. C’est tout ça tu comprends. T’as du mal à écrire. J’ai de plus en plus de mal à m’exprimer. Ça aussi c’est la chaîne. Quand t’as pas parlé pendant 9h, t’as tellement de choses à dire que t’arrives plus à les dires ; Que les mots ils arrivent tous ensemble dans la bouche. Et puis tu bégayes, tu t’énerves. Tout t’énerve. Tout. Et ce qui t’énerve encore plus, c’est ceux qui parlent de la chaîne, qui comprendrons jamais que tout ce qu’on peut dire, que toutes les améliorations qu’on peut lui apporter, c’est une chose, mais que le travail, il reste. C’est dur la chaîne. Moi, maintenant, je peux plus y aller, j’ai la trouille d’y aller. C’est pas le manque de volonté, c’est la peur d’y aller. La peur qu’ils me mutilent encore d’avantage. La peur que je ne puisse plus parler un jour, que je devienne muet. (…) J’ai tellement mal aux mains. J’ai tellement de grosses mains. Mes mains me dégoûtent tellement. Pourtant je les aime tellement mes mains. Je sens que je pourrais faire des trucs avec. Mais j’ai du mal à plier les doigts. Ma peau, elle s’en va. Je veux pas me l’arracher. C’est Peugeot qui me l’arrachera, et je lutterai pour éviter que Peugeot me l’arrache. C’est pour ça que je veux pas m’arracher la peau. Je veux pas qu’on les touche mes mains. C’est tout ce qu’on a. Peugeot essaye de les bouffer, de nous les user. Et nous, bah on lutte pour les avoir. C’est de la survie qu’on fait. »
L’Ukraine et les syndicats
Alors que la saison des conférences syndicales de l’année 2024 s’achève, il convient de faire le tour des syndicats britanniques, afin de faire le point sur la situation actuelle de la politique relative à la guerre en Ukraine, et sur le travail de solidarité active réalisé dans chaque syndicat sur la base de cette politique.
Le plus grand succès en termes de solidarité du mouvement syndical s’est produit lors du congrès général du Trade Union Congress (TUC) en 2023. Une motion proposée par le General Municipal Boilermakers GMB) et par l’Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) appelait à la solidarité active et à la reconnaissance de la guerre en Ukraine comme une invasion illégale et agressive de la Russie. Elle reconnaissait le travail accompli par l’Ukraine Solidarity Campaign (USC) et elle citait plusieurs syndicats ukrainiens qui avaient coordonné un travail important pour soutenir les travailleurs et pour s’opposer à l’invasion. L’adoption de cette motion a constitué une victoire pour la solidarité avec l’Ukraine au sein du mouvement.
▻https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2024/11/22/lukraine-et-les-syndicats
Violentomètre : pour aider à repérer les violences et #discriminations au #travail
Ce violentomètre est un outil de questionnement de ton cadre de travail. Il a pour but d’aider à prendre conscience du climat de ton milieu professionnel et à prévenir du risque de dégradation, de souffrance au travail.
Des syndicats dénoncent une campagne publicitaire du livre de Jordan Bardella dans les gares SNCF
▻https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/front-national/des-syndicats-denoncent-une-campagne-publicitaire-du-livre-de-jordan-bardella
Le seen
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1077397
étant dépourvu de lien j’ai cherché, alors ...
17.10.2024 - Hachette Livre a négocié auprès de la régie publicitaire de la SNCF la réservation de panneaux dans les gares pour promouvoir l’ouvrage du président du RN, qui doit paraître début novembre. Sans que l’entreprise ne connaisse le nom de l’auteur du livre.
Un « choc » et de la « colère ». Les syndicats CGT et Sud Rail de la SNCF ont interpellé le président de l’entreprise de transports, Jean-Pierre Farandou, ce jeudi 17 octobre. Motif de leur mécontentement : les gares pourraient faire l’objet prochainement d’une campagne publicitaire d’ampleur concernant le livre du président du Rassemblement national, Jordan Bardella (Ce que je porte, Éditions Fayards), dont la parution est prévue le 9 novembre.
Hachette Livre, maison maire de Fayard, détenue par le milliardaire conservateur Vincent Bolloré, a négocié avec la régie publicitaire de la SNCF la réservation de 581 panneaux publicitaires dans des gares, apprend-on dans Libération et l’Humanité ce mercredi 16 octobre. Au total 100 gares sont concernées, à Paris et en Île-de-France (67), ainsi qu’en province (43) pour une période s’étalant du 25 novembre au 17 décembre, indique Libération.
« Parti raciste, xénophobe, homophobe, sexiste »
Une « provocation » qui doit cesser pour la CGT cheminots. « Vous n’ignorez pas l’engagement qu’a été celui de la CGT avant l’été (lors des législatives, NDLR), pour éviter le pire, à savoir l’accession de M.Bardella à Matignon », écrit le syndicat à l’adresse de Jean-Pierre Farandou dans un post partagé sur Facebook.
« Nous l’avons fait parce que le FN/RN est un parti raciste, xénophobe, homophobe, sexiste, totalement contraire à nos valeurs qui au contraire prônent la tolérance, le vivre-ensemble. »
Même ton pour Sud Rail, qui martèle son « opposition totale » au RN. Tout en soulignant que le « Conseil d’État a confirmé le positionnement à l’extrême droite » de la formation lepenniste, le syndicat rappelle dans une lettre que le FN, devenu RN, « a été créé par des Waffen-SS, des collaborateurs du régime de Vichy et des membres de l’OAS ».
« En début d’année, la régie publicitaire de la RATP et de la SNCF Mediatransports n’a pas eu de problème pour retirer les affiches de l’humoriste Waly Dia et interrompre la campagne pourtant validée dans un premier temps au motif que celle-ci ’présente un caractère politique incompatible avec le devoir de neutralité qui s’impose dans les transports publics et pourrait être considérée comme diffamatoire ou injurieuse’ », écrit encore Sud Rail.
De son côté, la SNCF n’était pas au courant, Fayard n’étant pas dans l’obligation de préciser que les panneaux réservés concerneraient l’ouvrage de Jordan Bardella. Auprès de Franceinfo, Mediatransports, la régie publicitaire de la SNCF, a cependant indiqué qu’elle pouvait "refuser une campagne d’affichage, même si elle a été réservée.
« On vérifie si elle est conforme à la loi et aux obligations déontologiques et contractuelles. Dans ce cas, les gares sont des lieux publics, il y a donc par exemple une obligation de neutralité politique qui s’applique », a précisé l’entreprise qui attend de recevoir les « visuels » de cette campagne pour se prononcer.
#SNCF #bataille_du_rail #extrême_droite #syndicalisme #résistance #cheminots
South Korea’s Repressive Laws Deny Workers Their Rights
▻https://jacobin.com/2024/10/south-korea-workers-rights-law
La corée c’est comme l’Allemagne mais davantage confucéen surtout quand on regarde les droits restreints des employés.
2.10.2024 by Jamie Doucette - The ousting of a popular government official in Seoul last month was linked to Korean laws that bar many workers from engaging in political activity. A draconian system known as the “prosecutor republic” helps conservative elites maintain their power.
A ruling by South Korea’s Supreme Court in early September upheld a suspended sentence against Cho Hee-yeon, the popular superintendent of Seoul’s Metropolitan Office of Education and a progressive sociologist and civil society leader.
Cho is known for his efforts to expand free school meals, protect student rights, and limit private high schools. The ruling forced him to resign from his position, one akin to education minister for a city of nearly ten million people.
The removal of Cho is an injustice that speaks volumes about the present-day Korean power structure. Decades after the formal end of military rule, Korean workers still face stifling legal constraints on their freedom to engage in political activity. This is one of many obstacles facing the Korean left as it struggles to maintain a presence in national politics.
A Political Crime
What was the nature of Cho’s crime? He was charged under the Public Official Election Act in 2021 with abusing his power by helping to rehire five teachers from the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (KTU) who had previously faced charges under the same act. One was accused of posting defamatory messages on online message boards during the 2002 presidential elections (and subsequently pardoned), while the remaining four were sanctioned for collecting donations to support a candidate in the 2008 superintendent elections.
The original cases highlighted the limits on Korean workers’ freedom of association rights. Korea is one of the few countries that prohibit teachers from joining parties, supporting candidates, and expressing their political opinions publicly. Korea’s former conservative president Park Geun-hye effectively banned the KTU in 2014 for retaining dismissed teachers as members, rendering it an “illegal organization” for almost seven years, despite criticism from the International Labour Organization (ILO) and other international bodies.
A Supreme Court ruling eventually restored the union’s legal status in 2020. Park herself was impeached during the Candlelight Revolution of 2016–17 for a string of scandals and authoritarian political maneuverings involving Korea’s large conglomerates (the chaebol), former prosecutors, and close confidantes.
To help address the issue of the dismissed teachers, Cho sought legal advice on rehiring them and took the principled opinion that it was fair to consider their applications through a special recruitment process in 2019. Despite his indictment on charges that this process was illegal, Cho’s overall record as education superintendent was validated when he was one of the few prominent progressives to be reelected in the 2022 local elections, in his case for a third time.
Prosecutor Republic
Cho’s case is symptomatic of a deeper struggle that involves the power of a conservative bloc in Korean politics and the struggle to put forward a substantive left alternative. It was the first such case to be selected by Korea’s newly established Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO).
This independent office, established in 2021, was created in the wake of the Candlelight Revolution and #MeToo protests to investigate high-profile cases of corruption, collusion, and wrongdoing. Prominent prosecutors, supported by the conservative opposition, resisted this change as a threat to their autonomy. Many observers saw the targeting of Cho for the CIO’s first case as a sign that the prosecutors were determined to keep control and use their power to frustrate progressive politics.
Analysts have used the phrase “politics by public security” (공안정국) to describe this brand of politics in Korea, with the “prosecutor republic” (검찰공화국) as its current iteration. Prosecutors have long wielded enormous power over processes of investigation and indictment while maintaining close relations with the media and conservative elites. This is rooted in a legacy that dates back to Korea’s colonial era and the Cold War dictatorships that came after it.
This legal/political nexus helped fuel the Candlelight Revolution and led to efforts by the liberal administration of Moon Jae-in to tackle its power. Ironically, Moon’s reform push ended with the election of a conservative president, Yoon Suk-yeol, who hailed from the prosecution service itself. In office, Yoon has appointed former prosecutors who are close to him to prominent positions across his administration, from finance and trade to communications and public administration.
Yoon’s rise was intimately bound up with the politics of prosecution reform during Moon’s administration. Moon sought to put limits on the powers of investigation exercised by prosecutors and transfer greater responsibility for investigations to the police. He also set up the CIO as a special, independent body to handle the investigation and indictment of high-ranking officials.
As Moon’s prosecutor general, Yoon objected to these reforms and eventually resigned in protest. Meanwhile, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office investigated Moon’s minister of justice, Cho Kuk, who was tasked with overseeing the reform process. The investigation revealed some minor examples of corruption that undermined Moon’s promises to address inequality and challenge the status quo.
Specifically, Cho, a former criminal law professor at Korea’s elite Seoul National University, and his wife (also a professor) were accused of forging documents and using their influence to gain admission for their children to prestigious high schools and universities, among other allegations. Cho’s actions upset many people, especially young voters who resented his behavior and saw it as no different from the conceit and opportunity hoarding of the wealthy elite (who are often called “gold spoons”). As the scandal broke, it seemed hypocritical for Cho to be tasked with institutionalizing Moon’s pledge to create a society where “opportunities are equal, processes are fair, and outcomes are just.”
As a result, the fight over prosecution reform devolved into a politics of personality, polarizing around one’s stance toward Cho Kuk himself, who at that time was considered to be Moon’s most likely successor. Cho’s supporters depicted him as a figure who was suffering to keep the Candlelight movement alive, while the conservative bloc pointed to his record as evidence that the Left now represented “vested interests” to be overcome. Cho had participated in a variety of socialist and progressive movements since the 1980s and declared himself to be both a liberal and a socialist in his confirmation hearing.
This focus on Cho’s personal track record helped the conservative bloc to appropriate the rhetoric of “fairness” by shrewdly appointing Yoon as its presidential candidate. The perception of Yoon as an independent prosecutor who was not beholden to the elite enabled the conservative party to rebrand itself.
Yoon had previously led the investigation into Park Geun-hye and had prosecuted several chaebol heads and conservative appointees. An analogy for US politics would be if the Republican Party had selected Robert Mueller as its candidate following his investigation into Russian electoral interference.
Prosecution Reform as Social Reform?
The controversy about Cho obscured the nature and purpose of prosecution reform. As civil society organizations like the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice pointed out, the planned prosecution reform would do little to advance a comprehensive vision of economic democracy, a slogan on which Moon had long campaigned.
Such critics noted how the conglomerates had long evaded punishment for illegal acts, including bribery and anti-worker policies, due to the failure of the prosecution service to vigorously investigate and indict them. This problem, they argued, could not be fully resolved through prosecution reform without significant reform of the chaebol system itself.
One could make the same criticism of the administration’s half-hearted labor law reforms. Cho Kuk himself pressured unions to help negotiate a flexible working-hours agreement that weakened Moon’s pledges to institute a fifty-two-hour workweek and expand the minimum wage.
The administration also kept in place laws that enabled brutal damage claims against workers for trade union activity. It did not pass comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, and it took a selective approach to ratifying the core conventions of the ILO on freedom of association and collective bargaining, leaving many restrictions on workers’ rights intact.
While Cho’s prosecution reforms did eventually pass, the lack of a broader, egalitarian plan for legal reform that might have helped secure stronger political rights for workers left prosecutors with substantial powers that they could use to frustrate progressive demands. If the Moon administration had granted stronger recognition of political rights for teachers and translated the ILO’s conventions into domestic law more effectively, it would have been much more difficult for the authorities to launch cases against teachers and other workers for engaging in political activity. Such cases ultimately led to the ousting of Superintendent Cho.
Yoon’s 2022 presidential run thus benefited from his liberal predecessor’s lack of a comprehensive vision. The brand of “fairness” that Yoon campaigned on has proved to be distinctively anti-egalitarian.
During the election, he promised to disband the Ministry of Gender Equality, claiming that it was unfair to men. This was in spite of Korea’s abysmal record on gender equality, with the worst wage gap between male and female workers in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In office, Yoon ramped up the practice of using damage claims and other punitive measures against workers to suppress strikes while seeking to institute a new sixty-nine-hour working week.
In addition to former prosecutors, Yoon has also appointed several figures from the Korean New Right, who advocate sympathetic views of Japanese colonialism and Korea’s military dictatorships, to head important cultural and social institutions such as the Independence Hall, the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and the National Human Rights Commission. Taking a page from their anti-communist playbook, Yoon now frequently claims that “communist totalitarian” and “anti-state” forces have disguised themselves as legitimate progressive and human rights activists.
A Left Alternative?
Conservative forces were routed in this spring’s legislative elections, turning Yoon into a lame-duck president. However, that does not mean the election was a victory for the Left, whose parties were largely wiped out. An alliance between the Justice and Green Parties failed to win any seats, while the left-nationalist Jinbo (“Progressive”) Party took three seats through an alliance with the Democratic Party (DP), which is now by far the largest parliamentary group.
As Kap Seol has explained, the fate of the left parties was partly because of the sabotage of Korea’s proportional representation voting system under Moon’s tenure to favor satellite parties associated with the dominant players in the National Assembly. This limited the number of seats available for independent minor parties. But many voters who were unhappy with perceived cronyism of DP leader Lee Jae-myung also flocked to a new party created by Cho Kuk.
The standard English translation of the new group’s name — 조국혁신당 — as the “Rebuilding Korea Party” does not capture its close association with Cho himself. “Cho Kuk” can be read phonetically in Korean as “my country” or “my fatherland,” so a more literal translation would be “Cho Kuk Innovation Party” and/or “My Innovative Country Party.”
The party’s main pledge is to reform the “prosecutorial dictatorship” of the Yoon administration and impeach the president. It presents this issue both as a political goal and as a personal vendetta for the judicial harassment of Cho and his family: his wife served several years in prison, and Cho himself faces jail time in the future if he loses his appeal.
For many observers, the rise of Cho’s party speaks to the lack of a strong left alternative. While the group does include many center-left reformers from the Moon administration, it is mostly populated by figures associated with the so-called Gangnam Left, in reference to the affluent Seoul district. The term conjures up an image of property-owning, university-educated professionals who tend to vote progressive but also benefit from and seek to maintain their elite status.
For the moment, both Cho and the Democratic Party have embraced pro-labor issues. These include a long-awaited revision to protect freedom of association and end punitive damage claims against workers. This is known as the Yellow Envelope Law, after a public campaign in 2014 to help workers pay back such claims. They also talk about creating a “Seventh Republic” through constitutional reforms to expand social rights and popular participation as well as supporting initiatives to secure the political rights of teachers.
The problem is that the promised labor law revision could have easily been carried out when Cho and the DP were in power. The current president will continue to veto such efforts as long as he remains in office. Moreover, Cho and the Democrats have mostly borrowed these progressive policies from the Justice Party, the force they demolished in the recent elections.
Despite its own internal problems and its drift away from labor activism, the Justice Party still has a more egalitarian agenda than Cho’s single-issue force. Its absence from parliamentary politics is sure to leave a void. With Korean politics seemingly anchored in a personality-driven party system, the Left faces the challenge of reconstructing progressive politics along genuinely popular and egalitarian lines.
Éditions Agone : "🐈⬛ Sabotage 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐞 𝟏𝟑 𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐫𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 :
𝑸𝒖𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒗𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒖𝒓𝒔 𝒔𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 de Dominique Pinsolle" - France, États-Unis (1897-1918)
▻https://mastodon.social/@EditionsAgone/113089794372782901
« Toutes les forces #syndicalistes_révolutionnaires ont été réceptives au concept, mais seuls les militants français et les #Wobblies états-uniens ont produit une doctrine originale du #sabotage qui a rencontré un écho international – comme en témoigne la diffusion internationale du terme français et du symbole du chat noir. »
▻https://agone.org/livre/quand-les-travailleurs-sabotaient
Pfiou j’ai toujours pas fini le tome 1 de « L’histoire du sabotage » de son collègue Victor Cachard (ils étaient venus le présenter ici ya… 2 ans déjà) et ya le tome 2 qui sort en novembre… Ils avaient expliqué en quoi leurs livres étaient différents (en période ou quoi) mais je ne sais plus dire…
►https://www.editionslibre.org/produit/histoire-du-sabotage-tome-1-2
Eugene Debs : “The Scab Is the Natural Born Foe of Labor”
▻https://jacobin.com/2024/09/eugene-debs-scabs-labor-day
Une belle tirade contre la vermine de briseurs de grève par le grand syndicaliste et fondateur du syndicat des Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). On aimerait entendre plus souvent ce genre de discours à propos des abjects bellicistes et d’autres ennemis de classe.
2.9.2024 by Eugene Debs - This Labor Day weekend, we share Eugene Debs’s 1888 broadside against that most hateful of characters: the strikebreaker. The scab “sinks to the level of a loathsome reptile,” Debs writes. “He becomes a walking, breathing stench.”
Philosophers, particularly those who have sought to solve the simpler mysteries of creation, have always been greatly perplexed when endeavoring to find any plausible reason for the existence of certain insects and reptiles, which curse the earth, the air, and the water. They have never succeeded. The mystery is unexplained and unexplainable. But, while it is impossible to explain the whys and the wherefores of repulsive, pestiferous, and poisonous creatures, we may study their habits and guard against contact with them.
It becomes our duty at this writing to discuss the “scab.” Generally, people quickly comprehend what is meant when a creature, in the form of a man, is referred to as a “scab.” Shakespeare says, a “scab” is a “low fellow” — how low the great bard does not intimate, but he doubtless believed that a “scab” was the lowest in the list of bipeds. The term “scab” has a significance wholly repulsive. It is suggestive of filth, disease, and corruption. There is nothing in the term “scab” to redeem it from loathing. When a creature in the form of a man rightfully receives the sobriquet of “scab,” he is known to be a mass of moral putrescence. He sinks to the level of a loathsome reptile. Honorable men shun him as they would a pestilence. A scabby sheep, a mangy dog, outrank him. He becomes a walking, breathing stench. He is as destitute of soul as a dungeon toad. He is as heartless as a man-eating tiger. He has no more conscience than a tarantula. To call him a dog would be an insult to the whole canine race.
A poster from the 1888 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad strike. (Wikimedia Commons)
The average scab is a moral leper — unclean through and through, so vulgar and beastly in his instincts that he is as destitute of all sense of obligation, of what is due to others, as a hungry hog with its snout in a swill tub. The scab is a sneak — analyze him, resolve him to his original elements, and all the subtle arts of the chemist would never discover the millionth part of a milligram of manhood. A scab is as totally deficient of ability to comprehend the right as a piratical wolf. Being depraved by nature and association, he has no more ambition than a buzzard. When he sees a manly endeavor on the part of others to better their condition, the incident simply suggests to his mind that there is a chance for him, and with his hat under his arm and with bowed form he asks, like a menial, to work for wages that an honorable man refuses. The scab always comes to the front when honest workingmen strike against oppression and injustice. On such occasions, employers fish for scabs in the stinking pools of idleness and depravity, and they are ready to do their duty for such considerations as their masters may offer. The scab is a filthy wretch, who though the Mississippi ran bank-full of soap suds, could not wash him clean in a thousand years.
The scab is the natural born foe of labor in its efforts to advance from the condition of servitude to independence, and such he has been found to be in the struggle of the engineers and firemen with the CB&Q [The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, which saw a major strike in 1888], and he is destined to play the same degenerate role in the future. The scab merits universal reprobation, and that will be the verdict of all honorable men.
Eugene V. Debs
▻https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Debs’ Speech of Sedition
▻https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Debs%27_Speech_of_Sedition#1
A June 16, 1918, speech denouncing the First World War, and the military draft. Labour leader Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the crime of sedition after giving this speech, though his sentence was commuted before he completed his third year.
Le discours
Comrades, friends and fellow-workers, for this very cordial greeting, this very hearty reception, I thank you all with the fullest appreciation of your interest in and your devotion to the cause for which I am to speak to you this afternoon.
To speak for labor; to plead the cause of the men and women and children who toil; to serve the working class, has always been to me a high privilege; a duty of love.
I have just returned from a visit over yonder, where three of our most loyal comrades are paying the penalty for their devotion to the cause of the working class. They have come to realize, as many of us have, that it is extremely dangerous to exercise the constitutional right of free speech in a country fighting to make democracy safe in the world.
I realize that, in speaking to you this afternoon, there are certain limitations placed upon the right of free speech. I must be exceedingly careful, prudent, as to what I say, and even more careful and prudent as to how I say it. I may not be able to say all I think; but I am not going to say anything that I do not think. I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in jail than to be a sycophant and coward in the streets. They may put those boys in jail—and some of the rest of us in jail—but they cannot put the Socialist movement in jail. Those prison bars separate their bodies from ours, but their souls are here this afternoon. They are simply paying the penalty that all men have paid in all the ages of history for standing erect, and for seeking to pave the way to better conditions for mankind.
If it had not been for the men and women who, in the past, have had the moral courage to go to jail, we would still be in the jungles.
This assemblage is exceedingly good to look upon. I wish it were possible for me to give you what you are giving me this afternoon. What I say here amounts to but little; what I see here is exceedingly important. You workers in Ohio, enlisted in the greatest cause ever organized in the interest of your class, are making history today in the face of threatening opposition of all kinds—history that is going to be read with profound interest by coming generations.
There is but one thing you have to be concerned about, and that is that you keep foursquare with the principles of the international Socialist movement. It is only when you begin to compromise that trouble begins. So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what others may say, or think, or do, as long as I am sure that I am right with myself and the cause. There are so many who seek refuge in the popular side of a great question. As a Socialist, I have long since learned how to stand alone. For the last month I have been traveling over the Hoosier State; and, let me say to you, that, in all my connection with the Socialist movement, I have never seen such meetings, such enthusiasm, such unity of purpose; never have I seen such a promising outlook as there is today, notwithstanding the statement published repeatedly that our leaders have deserted us. Well, for myself, I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of Congress, and misrepresentatives of the masses—you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.
When I came away from Indiana, the comrades said: “When you cross the line and get over into the Buckeye State, tell the comrades there that we are on duty and doing duty. Give them for us, a hearty greeting, and tell them that we are going to make a record this fall that will be read around the world.”
The Socialists of Ohio, it appears, are very much alive this year. The party has been killed recently, which, no doubt, accounts for its extraordinary activity. There is nothing that helps the Socialist Party so much as receiving an occasional deathblow. The oftener it is killed the more active, the more energetic, the more powerful it becomes.
They who have been reading the capitalist newspapers realize what a capacity they have for lying. We have been reading them lately. They know all about the Socialist Party—the Socialist movement, except what is true. Only the other day they took an article that I had written—and most of you have read it—most of you members of the party, at least—and they made it appear that I had undergone a marvelous transformation. I had suddenly become changed—had in fact come to my senses; I had ceased to be a wicked Socialist, and had become a respectable Socialist, a patriotic Socialist—as if I had ever been anything else.
What was the purpose of this deliberate misrepresentation? It is so self-evident that it suggests itself. The purpose was to sow the seeds of dissension in our ranks; to have it appear that we were divided among ourselves; that we were pitted against each other, to our mutual undoing. But Socialists were not born yesterday. They know how to read capitalist newspapers; and to believe exactly the opposite of what they read.
Why should a Socialist be discouraged on the eve of the greatest triumph in all the history of the Socialist movement? It is true that these are anxious, trying days for us all—testing days for the women and men who are upholding the banner of labor in the struggle of the working class of all the world against the exploiters of all the world; a time in which the weak and cowardly will falter and fail and desert. They lack the fiber to endure the revolutionary test; they fall away; they disappear as if they had never been. On the other hand, they who are animated by the unconquerable spirit of the social revolution; they who have the moral courage to stand erect and assert their convictions; stand by them; fight for them; go to jail or to hell for them, if need be—they are writing their names, in this crucial hour—they are writing their names in faceless letters in the history of mankind.
Those boys over yonder—those comrades of ours—and how I love them! Aye, they are my younger brothers; their very names throb in my heart, thrill in my veins, and surge in my soul. I am proud of them; they are there for us; and we are here for them. Their lips, though temporarily mute, are more eloquent than ever before; and their voice, though silent, is heard around the world.
Are we opposed to Prussian militarism? Why, we have been fighting it since the day the Socialist movement was born; and we are going to continue to fight it, day and night, until it is wiped from the face of the earth. Between us there is no truce—no compromise.
But, before I proceed along this line, let me recall a little history, in which I think we are all interested.
In 1869 that grand old warrior of the social revolution, the elder Liebknecht, was arrested and sentenced to prison for three months, because of his war, as a Socialist, on the Kaiser and on the Junkers that rule Germany. In the meantime the Franco-Prussian war broke out. Liebknecht and Bebel were the Socialist members in the Reichstag. They were the only two who had the courage to protest against taking Alsace-Lorraine from France and annexing it to Germany. And for this they were sentenced two years to a prison fortress charged with high treason; because, even in that early day, almost fifty years ago, these leaders, these forerunners of the international Socialist movement were fighting the Kaiser and fighting the Junkers of Germany. They have continued to fight them from that day to this. Multiplied thousands of Socialists have languished in the jails of Germany because of their heroic warfare upon the despotic ruling class of that country.
Let us come down the line a little farther. You remember that, at the close of Theodore Roosevelt’s second term as President, he went over to Africa to make war on some of his ancestors. You remember that, at the close of his expedition, he visited the capitals of Europe; and that he was wined and dined, dignified and glorified by all the Kaisers and Czars and Emperors of the Old World. He visited Potsdam while the Kaiser was there; and, according to the accounts published in the American newspapers, he and the Kaiser were soon on the most familiar terms. They were hilariously intimate with each other, and slapped each other on the back. After Roosevelt had reviewed the Kaiser’s troops, according to the same accounts, he became enthusiastic over the Kaiser’s legions and said: “If I had that kind of an army, I could conquer the world.” He knew the Kaiser then just as well as he knows him now. He knew that he was the Kaiser, the Beast of Berlin. And yet, he permitted himself to be entertained by that Beast of Berlin; had his feet under the mahogany of the Beast of Berlin; was cheek by jowl with the Beast of Berlin. And, while Roosevelt was being entertained royally by the German Kaiser, that same Kaiser was putting the leaders of the Socialist Party in jail for fighting the Kaiser and the Junkers of Germany. Roosevelt was the guest of honor in the white house of the Kaiser, while the Socialists were in the jails of the Kaiser for fighting the Kaiser. Who then was fighting for democracy? Roosevelt? Roosevelt, who was honored by the Kaiser, or the Socialists who were in jail by order of the Kaiser?
Birds of a feather flock together
edit
When the newspapers reported that Kaiser Wilhelm and ex-President Theodore recognized each other at sight, were perfectly intimate with each other at the first touch, they made the admission that is fatal to the claim of Theodore Roosevelt, that he is the friend of the common people and the champion of democracy; they admitted that they were kith and kin; that they were very much alike; that their ideas and ideals were about the same. If Theodore Roosevelt is the great champion of democracy—the arch-foe of autocracy, what business had he as the guest of honor of the Prussian Kaiser? And when he met the Kaiser, and did honor to the Kaiser, under the terms imputed to him, wasn’t it pretty strong proof that he himself was a Kaiser at heart? Now, after being the guest of Emperor Wilhelm, the Beast of Berlin, he comes back to this country, and wants you to send ten million men over there to kill the Kaiser; to murder his former friend and pal. Rather queer, isn’t it? And yet, he is the patriot, and we are the traitors. I challenge you to find a Socialist anywhere on the face of the earth who was ever the guest of the Beast of Berlin, except as an inmate of his prison—the elder Liebknecht and the younger Liebknecht, the heroic son of his immortal sire.
A little more history along the same line. In 1902 Prince Henry paid a visit to this country. Do you remember him? I do, exceedingly well. Prince Henry is the brother of Emperor Wilhelm. Prince Henry is another Beast of Berlin, an autocrat, an aristocrat, a Junker of Junkers—very much despised by our American patriots. He came over here in 1902 as the representative of Kaiser Wilhelm; he was received by Congress and by several state legislatures—among others, by the state legislature of Massachusetts, then in session. He was invited there by the capitalist captains of that so-called commonwealth. And when Prince Henry arrived, there was one member of that body who kept his self-respect, put on his hat, and as Henry, the Prince, walked in, that member of the body walked out. And that was James F. Carey, the Socialist member of that body. All the rest—all the rest of the representatives in the Massachusetts legislature—all, all of them—joined in doing honor, in the most servile spirit, to the high representative of the autocracy of Europe. And the only man who left that body, was a Socialist. And yet , and yet they have the hardihood to claim that they are fighting autocracy and that we are in the service of the German government.
A little more history along the same line. I have a distinct recollection of it. It occurred fifteen years ago when Prince Henry came here. All of our plutocracy, all of the wealthy representatives living along Fifth Avenue—all, all of them—threw their palace doors wide open and received Prince Henry with open arms. But they were not satisfied with this; they got down and grovelled in the dust at his feet. Our plutocracy—women and men alike—vied with each other to lick the boots of Prince Henry, the brother and representative of the “Beast of Berlin.” And still our plutocracy, our Junkers, would have us believe that all the Junkers are confined to Germany. It is precisely because we refuse to believe this that they brand us as disloyalists. They want our eyes focused on the Junkers in Berlin so that we will not see those within our own borders.
I hate, I loathe, I despise Junkers and junkerdom. I have no earthly use for the Junkers of Germany, and not one particle more use for the Junkers in the United States.
They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing people. This is too much, even for a joke. But it is not a subject for levity; it is an exceedingly serious matter.
To whom do the Wall Street Junkers in our country marry their daughters? After they have wrung their countless millions from your sweat, your agony and your life’s blood, in a time of war as in a time of peace, they invest these untold millions in the purchase of titles of broken-down aristocrats, such as princes, dukes, counts and other parasites and no-accounts. Would they be satisfied to wed their daughters to honest workingmen? To real democrats? Oh, no! They scour the markets of Europe for vampires who are titled and nothing else. And they swap their millions for the titles, so that matrimony with them becomes literally a matter of money.
These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United States. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.
They would have you believe that the Socialist Party consists in the main of disloyalists and traitors. It is true in a sense not at all to their discredit. We frankly admit that we are disloyalists and traitors to the real traitors of this nation; to the gang that on the Pacific coast are trying to hang Tom Mooney and Warren Billings in spite of their well-known innocence and the protest of practically the whole civilized world.
I know Tom Mooney intimately—as if he were my own brother. He is an absolutely honest man. He had no more to do with the crime with which he was charged and for which he was convicted than I had. And if he ought to go to the gallows, so ought I. If he is guilty every man who belongs to a labor organization or to the Socialist Party is likewise guilty.
What is Tom Mooney guilty of? I will tell you. I am familiar with his record. For years he has been fighting bravely and without compromise the battles of the working class out on the Pacific coast. He refused to be bribed and he could not be browbeaten. In spite of all attempts to intimidate him he continued loyally in the service of the organized workers, and for this he became a marked man. The henchmen of the powerful and corrupt corporations, concluding finally that he could not be bought or bribed or bullied, decided he must therefore be murdered. That is why Tom Mooney is today a life prisoner, and why he would have been hanged as a felon long ago but for the world-wide protest of the working class.
Let us review another bit of history. You remember Francis J. Heney, special investigator of the state of California, who was shot down in cold blood in the courtroom in San Francisco. You remember that dastardly crime, do you not? The United Railways, consisting of a lot of plutocrats and highbinders represented by the Chamber of Commerce, absolutely control the city of San Francisco. The city was and is their private reservation. Their will is the supreme law. Take your stand against them and question their authority, and you are doomed. They do not hesitate a moment to plot murder or any other crime to perpetuate their corrupt and enslaving regime. Tom Mooney was the chief representative of the working class they could not control. They own the railways; they control the great industries; they are the industrial masters and the political rulers of the people. From their decision there is no appeal. They are the autocrats of the Pacific coast—as cruel and infamous as any that ever ruled in Germany or any other country in the old world. When their rule became so corrupt that at last a grand jury indicted them and they were placed on trial, and Francis J. Heney was selected to assist in their prosecution, this gang, represented by the Chamber of Commerce; this gang of plutocrats, autocrats and highbinders, hired an assassin to shoot Heney down in the courtroom. Heney, however, happened to live through it. But that was not their fault. The same identical gang that hired the murderer to kill Heney also hired false witnesses to swear away the life of Tom Mooney and, foiled in that, they have kept him in a foul prisonhole ever since.
Every solitary one of these aristocratic conspirators and would-be murderers claims to be an arch-patriot; every one of them insists that the war is being waged to make the world safe for democracy. What humbug! What rot! What false pretense! These autocrats, these tyrants, these red-handed robbers and murderers, the “patriots,” while the men who have the courage to stand face to face with them, speak the truth, and fight for their exploited victims—they are the disloyalists and traitors. If this be true, I want to take my place side by side with the traitors in this fight.
The other day they sentenced Kate Richards O’Hare to the penitentiary for five years. Think of sentencing a woman to the penitentiary simply for talking. The United States, under plutocratic rule, is the only country that would send a woman to prison for five years for exercising the right of free speech. If this be treason, let them make the most of it.
Let me review a bit of history in connection with this case. I have known Kate Richards O’Hare intimately for twenty years. I am familiar with her public record. Personally I know her as if she were my own sister. All who know Mrs. O’Hare know her to be a woman of unquestioned integrity.’ And they also know that she is a woman of unimpeachable loyalty to the Socialist movement. When she went out into North Dakota to make her speech, followed by plain-clothes men in the service of the government intent upon effecting her arrest and securing her prosecution and conviction—when she went out there, it was with the full knowledge on her part that sooner or later these detectives would accomplish their purpose. She made her speech, and that speech was deliberately misrepresented for the purpose of securing her conviction. The only testimony against her was that of a hired witness. And when the farmers, the men and women who were in the audience she addressed—when they went to Bismarck where the trial was held to testify in her favor, to swear that she had not used the language she was charged with having used, the judge refused to allow them to go upon the stand. This would seem incredible to me if I had not had some experience of my own with federal courts.
Who appoints our federal judges? The people? In all the history of the country, the working class have never named a federal judge. There are 121 of these judges and every solitary one holds his position, his tenure, through the influence and power of corporate capital. The corporations and trusts dictate their appointment. And when they go to the bench, they go not to serve the people, but to serve the interests that place them and keep them where they are.
Why, the other day, by a vote of five to four—a kind of craps game—come seven, come ‘leven—they declared the child labor law unconstitutional—a law secured after twenty years of education and agitation on the part of all kinds of people. And yet, by a majority of one, the Supreme Court a body of corporation lawyers, with just one exception, wiped that law from the statute books, and this in our so-called democracy, so that we may continue to grind the flesh and blood and bones of puny little children into profits for the Junkers of Wall Street. And this in a country that boasts of fighting to make the world safe for democracy! The history of this country is being written in the blood of the childhood the industrial lords have murdered.
These are not palatable truths to them. They do not like to hear them; and what is more they do not want you to hear them. And that is why they brand us as undesirable citizens , and as disloyalists and traitors. If we were actual traitors—traitors to the people and to their welfare and progress, we would be regarded as eminently respectable citizens of the republic; we would hold high office, have princely incomes, and ride in limousines; and we would be pointed out as the elect who have succeeded in life in honorable pursuit, and worthy of emulation by the youth of the land. It is precisely because we are disloyal to the traitors that we are loyal to the people of this nation.
Scott Nearing! You have heard of Scott Nearing. He is the greatest teacher in the United States. He was in the University of Pennsylvania until the Board of Trustees, consisting of great capitalists, captains of industry, found that he was teaching sound economics to the students in his classes. This sealed his fate in that institution. They sneeringly charged—just as the same usurers, money-changers, pharisees, hypocrites charged the Judean Carpenter some twenty centuries ago—that he was a false teacher and that he was stirring up the people.
The Man of Galilee, the Carpenter, the workingman who became the revolutionary agitator of his day soon found himself to be an undesirable citizen in the eyes of the ruling knaves and they had him crucified. And now their lineal descendants say of Scott Nearing, “He is preaching false economics. We cannot crucify him as we did his elder brother but we can deprive him of employment and so cut off his income and starve him to death or into submission. We will not only discharge him but place his name upon the blacklist and make it impossible for him to earn a living. He is a dangerous man for he is teaching the truth and opening the eyes of the people.” And the truth, oh, the truth has always been unpalatable and intolerable to the class who live out of the sweat and misery of the working class.
Max Eastman has been indicted and his paper suppressed, just as the papers with which I have been connected have all been suppressed. What a wonderful compliment they pay us! They are afraid that we may mislead and contaminate you. You are their wards; they are your guardians and they know what is best for you to read and hear and know. They are bound to see to it that our vicious doctrines do not reach your ears. And so in our great democracy, under our free institutions, they flatter our press by suppression; and they ignorantly imagine that they have silenced revolutionary propaganda in the United States. What an awful mistake they make for our benefit! As a matter of justice to them we should respond with resolutions of thanks and gratitude. Thousands of people who had never before heard of our papers are now inquiring for and insisting upon seeing them. They have succeeded only in arousing curiosity in our literature and propaganda. And woe to him who reads Socialist literature from curiosity! He is surely a goner. I have known of a thousand experiments but never one that failed.
John M. Work! You know John, now on the editorial staff of the Milwaukee Leader! When I first knew him he was a lawyer out in Iowa. The capitalists out there became alarmed because of the rapid growth of the Socialist movement. So they said: “We have to find some able fellow to fight this menace.” They concluded that John Work was the man for the job and they said to him: “John, you are a bright young lawyer; you have a brilliant future before you. We want to engage you to find out all you can about socialism and then proceed to counteract its baneful effects and check its further growth.”
John at once provided himself with Socialist literature and began his study of the red menace, with the result that after he had read and digested a few volumes he was a full-fledged Socialist and has been fighting for socialism ever since.
How stupid and shortsighted the ruling class really is! Cupidity is stone blind. It has no vision. The greedy, profit-seeking exploiter cannot see beyond the end of his nose. He can see a chance for an “opening”; he is cunning enough to know what graft is and where it is, and how it can be secured, but vision he has none—not the slightest. He knows nothing of the great throbbing world that spreads out in all directions. He has no capacity for literature; no appreciation of art; no soul for beauty. That is the penalty the parasites pay for the violation of the laws of life. The Rockefellers are blind. Every move they make in their game of greed but hastens their own doom. Every blow they strike at the Socialist movement reacts upon themselves. Every time they strike at us they hit themselves. It never fails. Every time they strangle a Socialist paper they add a thousand voices proclaiming the truth of the principles of socialism and the ideals of the Socialist movement. They help us in spite of themselves.
Socialism is a growing idea; an expanding philosophy. It is spreading over the entire face of the earth: It is as vain to resist it as it would be to arrest the sunrise on the morrow. It is coming, coming, coming all along the line. Can you not see it? If not, I advise you to consult an oculist. There is certainly something the matter with your vision. It is the mightiest movement in the history of mankind. What a privilege to serve it! I have regretted a thousand times that I can do so little for the movement that has done so much for me. The little that I am, the little that I am hoping to be, I owe to the Socialist movement. It has given me my ideas and ideals; my principles and convictions, and I would not exchange one of them for all of Rockefeller’s bloodstained dollars. It has taught me how to serve—a lesson to me of priceless value. It has taught me the ecstasy in the handclasp of a comrade. It has enabled me to hold high communion with you, and made it possible for me to take my place side by side with you in the great struggle for the better day; to multiply myself over and over again, to thrill with a fresh-born manhood; to feel life truly worthwhile; to open new avenues of vision; to spread out glorious vistas; to know that I am kin to all that throbs; to be class-conscious, and to realize that, regardless of nationality, race, creed, color or sex, every man, every woman who toils, who renders useful service, every member of the working class without an exception, is my comrade, my brother and sister—and that to serve them and their cause is the highest duty of my life.
And in their service I can feel myself expand; I can rise to the stature of a man and claim the right to a place on earth—a place where I can stand and strive to speed the day of industrial freedom and social justice.
Yes, my comrades, my heart is attuned to yours. Aye, all our hearts now throb as one great heart responsive to the battle cry of the social revolution. Here, in this alert and inspiring assemblage our hearts are with the Bolsheviki of Russia. Those heroic men and women, those unconquerable comrades have by their incomparable valor and sacrifice added fresh luster to the fame of the international movement. Those Russian comrades of ours have made greater sacrifices, have suffered more, and have shed more heroic blood than any like number of men and women anywhere on earth; they have laid the foundation of the first real democracy that ever drew the breath of life in this world. And the very first act of the triumphant Russian revolution was to proclaim a state of peace with all mankind, coupled with a fervent moral appeal, not to kings, not to emperors, rulers or diplomats but to the people of all nations. Here we have the very breath of democracy, the quintessence of the dawning freedom. The Russian revolution proclaimed its glorious triumph in its ringing and inspiring appeal to the peoples of all the earth. In a humane and fraternal spirit new Russia, emancipated at last from the curse of the centuries, called upon all nations engaged in the frightful war, the Central Powers as well as the Allies, to send representatives to a conference to lay down terms of peace that should be just and lasting. Here was the supreme opportunity to strike the blow to make the world safe for democracy. Was there any response to that noble appeal that in some day to come will be written in letters of gold in the history of the world? Was there any response whatever to that appeal for universal peace? No, not the slightest attention was paid to it by the Christian nations engaged in the terrible slaughter.
It has been charged that Lenin and Trotsky and the leaders of the revolution were treacherous, that they made a traitorous peace with Germany. Let us consider that proposition briefly. At the time of the revolution Russia had been three years in the war. Under the Czar she had lost more than four million of her ill-clad, poorly-equipped, half-starved soldiers, slain outright or disabled on the field of battle. She was absolutely bankrupt. Her soldiers were mainly without arms. This was what was bequeathed to the revolution by the Czar and his regime; and for this condition Lenin and Trotsky were not responsible, nor the Bolsheviki. For this appalling state of affairs the Czar and his rotten bureaucracy were solely responsible. When the Bolsheviki came into power and went through the archives they found and exposed the secret treaties—the treaties that were made between the Czar and the French government, the British government and the Italian government, proposing, after the victory was achieved, to dismember the German Empire and destroy the Central Powers. These treaties have never been denied nor repudiated. Very little has been said about them in the American press. I have a copy of these treaties, showing that the purpose of the Allies is exactly the purpose of the Central Powers, and that is the conquest and spoilation of the weaker nations that has always been the purpose of war.
Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another’s throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.
They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
And here let me emphasize the fact—and it cannot be repeated too often—that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.
Yours not to reason why;
Yours but to do and die.
That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation.
If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace.
Rose Pastor Stokes! And when I mention her name I take off my hat. Here we have another heroic and inspiring comrade. She had her millions of dollars at command. Did her wealth restrain her an instant? On the contrary her supreme devotion to the cause outweighed all considerations of a financial or social nature. She went out boldly to plead the cause of the working class and they rewarded her high courage with a ten years’ sentence to the penitentiary. Think of it! Ten years! What atrocious crime had she committed? What frightful things had she said? Let me answer candidly. She said nothing more than I have said here this afternoon. I want to admit—I want to admit without reservation that if Rose Pastor Stokes is guilty of crime, so am I. If she is guilty for the brave part she has taken in this testing time of human souls I would not be cowardly enough to plead my innocence. And if she ought to be sent to the penitentiary for ten years, so ought I without a doubt.
What did Rose Pastor Stokes say? Why, she said that a government could not at the same time serve both the profiteers and the victims of the profiteers. Is it not true? Certainly it is and no one can successfully dispute it.
Roosevelt said a thousand times more in the very same paper, the Kansas City Star. Roosevelt said vauntingly the other day that he would be heard if he went to jail. He knows very well that he is taking no risk of going to jail. He is shrewdly laying his wires for the Republican nomination in 1920 and he is an adept in making the appeal of the demagogue. He would do anything to discredit the Wilson administration that he may give himself and his party all credit. That is the only rivalry there is between the two old capitalist parties—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party—the political twins of the master class. They are not going to have any friction between them this fall. They are all patriots in this campaign, and they are going to combine to prevent the election of any disloyal Socialist. I have never heard anyone tell of any difference between these corrupt capitalist parties. Do you know of any? I certainly do not. The situation is that one is in and the other trying to break in, and that is substantially the only difference between them.
Rose Pastor Stokes never uttered a word she did not have a legal, constitutional right to utter. But her message to the people, the message that stirred their thoughts and opened their eyes—that must be suppressed; her voice must be silenced. And so she was promptly subjected to a mock trial and sentenced to the penitentiary for ten years. Her conviction was a foregone conclusion. The trial of a Socialist in a capitalist court is at best a farcical affair. What ghost of a chance had she in a court with a packed jury and a corporation tool on the bench? Not the least in the world. And so she goes to the penitentiary for ten years if they carry out their brutal and disgraceful graceful program. For my part I do not think they will. In fact I feel sure they will not. If the war were over tomorrow the prison doors would open to our people. They simply mean to silence the voice of protest during the war.
What a compliment it is to the Socialist movement to be thus persecuted for the sake of the truth! The truth alone will make the people free. And for this reason the truth must not be permitted to reach the people. The truth has always been dangerous to the rule of the rogue, the exploiter, the robber. So the truth must be ruthlessly suppressed. That is why they are trying to destroy the Socialist movement; and every time they strike a blow they add a thousand new voices to the hosts proclaiming that socialism is the hope of humanity and has come to emancipate the people from their final form of servitude.
How good this sip of cool water from the hand of a comrade! It is as refreshing as if it were out on the desert waste. And how good it is to look into your glowing faces this afternoon! You are really good looking to me, I assure you. And I am glad there are so many of you. Your tribe has increased amazingly since first I came here. You used to be so few and far between. A few years ago when you struck a town the first thing you had to do was to see if you could locate a Socialist; and you were pretty lucky if you struck the trail of one before you left town. If he happened to be the only one and he is still living, he is now regarded as a pioneer and pathfinder; he holds a place of honor in your esteem, and he has lodgment in the hearts of all who have come after him. It is far different now. You can hardly throw a stone in the dark without hitting a Socialist. They are everywhere in increasing numbers; and what marvelous changes are taking place in the people!
Some years ago I was to speak at Warren in this state. It happened to be at the time that President McKinley was assassinated. In common with all others I deplored that tragic event. There is not a Socialist who would have been guilty of that crime. We do not attack individuals. We do not seek to avenge ourselves upon those opposed to our faith. We have no fight with individuals as such. We are capable of pitying those who hate us. We do not hate them; we know better; we would freely give them a cup of water if they needed it. There is no room in our hearts for hate, except for the system, the social system in which it is possible for one man to amass a stupendous fortune doing nothing, while millions of others suffer and struggle and agonize and die for the bare necessities of existence.
President McKinley, as I have said, had been assassinated. I was first to speak at Portsmouth, having been booked there some time before the assassination. Promptly the Christian ministers of Portsmouth met in special session and passed a resolution declaring that “Debs, more than any other person, was responsible for the assassination of our beloved President.” It was due to the doctrine that Debs was preaching that this crime was committed, according to these patriotic parsons, and so this pious gentry, the followers of the meek and lowly Nazarene, concluded that I must not be permitted to enter the city. And they had the mayor issue an order to that effect. I went there soon after, however. I was to speak at Warren, where President McKinley’s double-cousin was postmaster. I went there and registered. I was soon afterward invited to leave the hotel. I was exceedingly undesirable that day. I was served with notice that the hall would not be opened and that I would not be permitted to speak. I sent back word to the mayor by the only Socialist left in town—and he only remained because they did not know he was there—I sent word to the mayor that I would speak in Warren that night, according to schedule, or I would leave there in a box for the return turn trip.
The Grand Army of the Republic called a special meeting and then marched to the hall in full uniform and occupied the front seats in order to silence me if my speech did not suit them. I went to the hall, however, found it open, and made my speech. There was no interruption. I told the audience frankly who was responsible for the President’s assassination. I said: “As long as there is misery caused by robbery at the bottom there will be assassination at the top.” I showed them, evidently to their satisfaction, that it was their own capitalist system that was responsible; the system that had impoverished and brutalized the ancestors of the poor witless boy who had murdered the President. Yes, I made my speech that night and it was well received but when I left there I was still an “undesirable citizen.”
Some years later I returned to Warren. It seemed that the whole population was out for the occasion. I was received with open arms. I was no longer a demagogue; no longer a fanatic or an undesirable citizen. I had become exceedingly respectable simply because the Socialists had increased in numbers and socialism had grown in influence and power. If ever I become entirely respectable I shall be quite sure that I have outlived myself.
It is the minorities who have made the history of this world. It is the few who have had the courage to take their places at the front; who have been true enough to themselves to speak the truth that was in them; who have dared oppose the established order of things; who have espoused the cause of the suffering, struggling poor; who have upheld without regard to personal consequences the cause of freedom and righteousness. It is they, the heroic, self-sacrificing few who have made the history of the race and who have paved the way from barbarism to civilization. The many prefer to remain upon the popular side. They lack the courage and vision to join a despised minority that stands for a principle; they have not the moral fiber that withstands, endures and finally conquers. They are to be pitied and not treated with contempt for they cannot help their cowardice. But, thank God, in every age and in every nation there have been the brave and self-reliant few, and they have been sufficient to their historic task; and we, who are here today, are under infinite obligations to them because they suffered, they sacrificed, they went to jail, they had their bones broken upon the wheel, they were burned at the stake and their ashes scattered to the winds by the hands of hate and revenge in their struggle to leave the world better for us than they found it for themselves. We are under eternal obligations to them because of what they did and what they suffered for us and the only way we can discharge that obligation is by doing the best we can for those who are to come after us. And this is the high purpose of every Socialist on earth. Everywhere they are animated by the same lofty principles; everywhere they have the same noble ideals; everywhere they are clasping hands across national boundary lines; everywhere they are calling one another Comrade, the blessed word that springs from the heart of unity and bursts into blossom upon the lips. Each passing day they are getting into closer touch all along the battle line, waging the holy war of the working class of the world against the ruling and exploiting class of the world. They make many mistakes and they profit by them all. They encounter numerous defeats, and grow stronger through them all. They never take a backward step.
The heart of the international Socialist never beats a retreat.
They are pressing forward, here, there and everywhere, in all the zones that girdle the globe. Everywhere these awakening workers, these class-conscious proletarians, these hardy sons and daughters of honest toil are proclaiming the glad tidings of the coming emancipation, everywhere their hearts are attuned to the most sacred cause that ever challenged men and women to action in all the history of the world. Everywhere they are moving toward democracy and the dawn; marching toward the sunrise, their faces all aglow with the light of the coming day. These are the Socialists, the most zealous and enthusiastic crusaders the world has ever known. They are making history that will light up the horizon of coming generations, for their mission is the emancipation of the human race. They have been reviled; they have been ridiculed, persecuted, imprisoned and have suffered death, but they have been sufficient to themselves and their cause, and their final triumph is but a question of time.
Do you wish to hasten the day of victory? Join the Socialist Party! Don’t wait for the morrow. Join now! Enroll your name without fear and take your place where you belong. You cannot do your duty by proxy. You have got to do it yourself and do it squarely and then as you look yourself in the face you will have no occasion to blush. You will know what it is to be a real man or woman. You will lose nothing; you will gain everything. Not only will you lose nothing but you will find something of infinite value, and that something will be yourself. And that is your supreme need—to find yourself—to really know yourself and your purpose in life.
You need at this time especially to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder. You need to know that you were not created to work and produce and impoverish yourself to enrich an idle exploiter. You need to know that you have a mind to improve, a soul to develop, and a manhood to sustain.
You need to know that it is your duty to rise above the animal plane of existence. You need to know that it is for you to know something about literature and science and art. You need to know that you are verging on the edge of a great new world. You need to get in touch with your comrades and fellow workers and to become conscious of your interests, your powers and your possibilities as a class. You need to know that you belong to the great majority of mankind. You need to know that as long as you are ignorant, as long as you are indifferent, as long as you are apathetic, unorganized and content, you will remain exactly where you are. You will be exploited; you will be degraded, and you will have to beg for a job. You will get just enough for your slavish toil to keep you in working order, and you will be looked down upon with scorn and contempt by the very parasites that live and luxuriate out of your sweat and unpaid labor.
If you would be respected you have got to begin by respecting yourself. Stand up squarely and look yourself in the face and see a man! Do not allow yourself to fall into the predicament of the poor fellow who, after he had heard a Socialist speech concluded that he too ought to be a Socialist. The argument he had heard was unanswerable. “Yes,” he said to himself, “all the speaker said was true and I certainly ought to join the party.” But after a while he allowed his ardor to cool and he soberly concluded that by joining the party he might anger his boss and lose his job. He then concluded: “I can’t take the chance.” That night he slept alone. There was something on his conscience and it resulted in a dreadful dream. Men always have such dreams when they betray themselves. A Socialist is free to go to bed with a clear conscience. He goes to sleep with his manhood and he awakens and walks forth in the morning with his self-respect. He is unafraid and he can look the whole world in the face, without a tremor and without a blush. But this poor weakling who lacked the courage to do the bidding of his reason and conscience was haunted by a startling dream and at midnight he awoke in terror, bounded from his bed and exclaimed: “My God, there is nobody in this room.” He was absolutely right. There was nobody in that room.
How would you like to sleep in a room that had nobody in it? It is an awful thing to be nobody. That is certainly a state of mind to get out of, the sooner the better.
There is a great deal of hope for Baker, Ruthenberg and Wagenknecht who are in jail for their convictions; but for the fellow that is nobody there is no pardoning power. He is “in” for life. Anybody can be nobody; but it takes a man to be somebody.
To turn your back on the corrupt Republican Party and the still more corrupt Democratic Party—the gold-dust lackeys of the ruling class counts for still more after you have stepped out of those popular and corrupt capitalist parties to join a minority party that has an ideal, that stands for a principle, and fights for a cause. This will be the most important change you have ever made and the time will come when you will thank me for having made the suggestion. It was the day of days for me. I remember it well. It was like passing from midnight darkness to the noontide light of day. It came almost like a flash and found me ready. It must have been in such a flash that great, seething, throbbing Russia, prepared by centuries of slavery and tears and martyrdom, was transformed from a dark continent to a land of living light.
There is something splendid, something sustaining and inspiring in the prompting of the heart to be true to yourself and to the best you know, especially in a crucial hour of your life. You are in the crucible today, my Socialist comrades! You are going to be tried by fire, to what extent no one knows. If you are weak-fibered and fainthearted you will be lost to the Socialist movement. We will have to bid you goodbye. You are not the stuff of which revolutions are made. We are sorry for you unless you chance to be an “intellectual.” The “intellectuals,” many of them, are already gone. No loss on our side nor gain on the other.
I am always amused in the discussion of the “intellectual” phase of this question. It is the same old standard under which the rank and file are judged. What would become of the sheep if they had no shepherd to lead them out of the wilderness into the land of milk and honey?
Oh, yes, “I am your shepherd and ye are my mutton.”
They would have us believe that if we had no “intellectuals” we would have no movement. They would have our party, the rank and file, controlled by the “intellectual” bosses as the Republican and Democratic parties are controlled. These capitalist parties are managed by “intellectual” leaders and the rank and file are sheep that follow the bellwether to the shambles.
In the Republican and Democratic parties you of the common herd are not expected to think. That is not only unnecessary but might lead you astray. That is what the “intellectual” leaders are for. They do the thinking and you do the voting. They ride in carriages at the front where the band plays and you tramp in the mud, bringing up the rear with great enthusiasm.
The capitalist system affects to have great regard and reward for intellect, and the capitalists give themselves full credit for having superior brains. When we have ventured to say that the time would come when the working class would rule they have bluntly answered “Never! it requires brains to rule.” The workers of course have none. And they certainly try hard to prove it by proudly supporting the political parties of their masters under whose administration they are kept in poverty and servitude.
The government is now operating its railroads for the more effective prosecution of the war. Private ownership has broken down utterly and the government has had to come to the rescue. We have always said that the people ought to own the railroads and operate them for the benefit of the people. We advocated that twenty years ago. But the capitalists and their henchmen emphatically objected. “You have got to have brains to run the railroads,” they tauntingly retorted. Well, the other day McAdoo, the governor-general of the railroads under government operation; discharged all the high-salaried presidents and other supernumeraries. In other words, he fired the “brains” bodily and yet all the trains have been coming and going on schedule time. Have you noticed any change for the worse since the “brains” are gone? It is a brainless system now, being operated by “hands.” But a good deal more efficiently than it had been operated by so-called “brains” before. And this determines infallibly the quality of their vaunted, high-priced capitalist “brains.” It is the kind you can get at a reasonable figure at the market place. They have always given themselves credit for having superior brains and given this as the reason for the supremacy of their class. It is true that they have the brains that indicates the cunning of the fox, the wolf, but as for brains denoting real intelligence and the measure of intellectual capacity they are the most woefully ignorant people on earth. Give me a hundred capitalists just as you find them here in Ohio and let me ask them a dozen simple questions about the history of their own country and I will prove to you that they are as ignorant and unlettered as any you may find in the so-called lower class. They know little of history; they are strangers to science; they are ignorant of sociology and blind to art but they know how to exploit, how to gouge, how to rob, and do it with legal sanction. They always proceed legally for the reaon that the class which has the power to rob upon a large scale has also the power to control the government and legalize their robbery. I regret that lack of time prevents me from discussing this phase of the question more at length.
They are continually talking about your patriotic duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches.
And now among other things they are urging you to “cultivate” war gardens, while at the same time a government war report just issued shows that practically 52 percent of the arable, tillable soil is held out of use by the landlords, speculators and profiteers. They themselves do not cultivate the soil. They could not if they would. Nor do they allow others to cultivate it. They keep it idle to enrich themselves, to pocket the millions of dollars of unearned increment. Who is it that makes this land valuable while it is fenced in and kept out of use? It is the people. Who pockets this tremendous accumulation of value? The landlords. And these landlords who toil not and spin not are supreme among American “patriots.”
In passing I suggest that we stop a moment to think about the term “landlord.” “LANDLORD!” Lord of the Land! The lord of the land is indeed a superpatriot. This lord who practically owns the earth tells you that we are fighting this war to make the world safe for democracy—he who shuts out all humanity from his private domain; he who profiteers at the expense of the people who have been slain and mutilated by multiplied thousands, under pretense of being the great American patriot. It is he, this identical patriot who is in fact the archenemy of the people; it is he that you need to wipe from power. It is he who is a far greater menace to your liberty and your well-being than the Prussian Junkers on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.
Fifty-two percent of the land kept out of use, according to their own figures! They tell you that there is an alarming shortage of flour and that you need to produce more. They tell you further that you have got to save wheat so that more can be exported for the soldiers who are fighting on the other side, while half of your tillable soil is held out of use by the landlords and profiteers. What do you think of that?
Again, they tell you there is a coal famine now in the state of Ohio. The state of Indiana, where I live, is largely underlaid with coal. There is practically an inexhaustible supply. The coal is banked beneath our very feet. It is within touch all about us—all we can possibly use and more. And here are the miners, ready to enter the mines. Here is the machinery ready to be put into operation to increase the output to any desired capacity. And three weeks ago a national officer of the United Mine Workers issued and published a statement to the Labor Department of the United States government to the effect that the 600,000 coal miners in the United States at this time, when they talk about a coal famine, are not permitted to work more than half time. I have been around over Indiana for many years. I have often been in the coal fields; again and again I have seen the miners idle while at the same time there was a scarcity of coal.
They tell you that you ought to buy your coal right away; that you may freeze next winter if you do not. At the same time they charge you three prices for your coal! Oh, yes, this ought to suit you perfectly if you vote the Republican or Democratic ticket and believe in the private ownership of the coal mines and their operation for private profit.
The coal mines now being privately owned, the operators want a scarcity of coal so they can boost their prices and enrich themselves accordingly. If an abundance of coal were mined there would be lower prices and this would not suit the mine owners. Prices soar and profits increase when there is a scarcity of coal.
It is also apparent that there is collusion between the mine owners and the railroads. The mine owners declare there are no cars while the railroad men insist that there is no coal. And between them they delude, defraud and rob the people.
Let us illustrate a vital point. Here is the coal in great deposits all about us; here are the miners and the machinery of production. Why should there be a coal famine upon the one hand and an army of idle and hungry miners on the other hand? Is it not an incredibly stupid situation, an almost idiotic if not criminal state of affairs?
We Socialists say: “Take possession of the mines in the name of the people.” Set the miners at work and give every miner the equivalent of all the coal he produces. Reduce the work day in proportion to the development of productive machinery. That would at once settle the matter of a coal famine and of idle miners. But that is too simple a proposition and the people will have none of it. The time will come, however, when the people will be driven to take such action for there is no other efficient and permanent solution of the problem.
In the present system the miner, a wage slave, gets down into a pit 300 or 400 feet deep. He works hard and produces a ton of coal. But he does not own an ounce of it. That coal belongs to some mine-owning plutocrat who may be in New York or sailing the high seas in his private yacht; or he may be hobnobbing with royalty in the capitals of Europe, and that is where most of them were before the war was declared. The industrial captain, so- called, who lives in Paris, London, Vienna or some other center of gaiety does not have to work to revel in luxury. He owns the mines and he might as well own the miners.
That is where you workers are and where you will remain as long as you give your support to the political parties of your masters and exploiters. You vote these miners out of a job and reduce them to corporation vassals and paupers.
We Socialists say: “Take possession of the mines; call the miner to work and return to him the equivalent of the value of his product.” He can then build himself a comfortable home; live in it; enjoy it with his family. He can provide himself and his wife and children with clothes—good clothes—not shoddy; wholesome food in abundance, education for the children, and the chance to live the lives of civilized human beings, while at the same time the people will get coal at just what it costs to mine it.
Of course that would be socialism as far as it goes. But you are not in favor of that program. It is too visionary because it is so simple and practical. So you will have to continue to wait until winter is upon you before you get your coal and then pay three prices for it because you insist upon voting a capitalist ticket and giving your support to the present wage-slave system. The trouble with you is that you are still in a capitalist state of mind.
Lincoln said: “If you want that thing that is the thing you want”; and you will get it to your heart’s content. But some good day you will wake up and realize that a change is needed and wonder why you did not know it long before. Yes, a change is certainly needed, not merely a change of party but a change of system; a change from slavery to freedom and from despotism to democracy, wide as the world. When this change comes at last, we shall rise from brutehood to brotherhood, and to accomplish it we have to educate and organize the workers industrially and politically, but not along the zigzag craft lines laid down by Gompers, who through all of his career has favored the master class. You never hear the capitalist press speak of him nowadays except in praise and adulation. He has recently come into great prominence as a patriot. You never find him on the unpopular side of a great issue. He is always conservative, satisfied to leave the labor problem to be settled finally at the banqueting board with Elihu Root, Andrew Carnegie and the rest of the plutocratic civic federationists. When they drink wine and smoke scab cigars together the labor question is settled so far as they are concerned.
And while they are praising Gompers they are denouncing the I.W.W. There are few men who have the courage to say a word in favor of the I.W.W. I have. Let me say here that I have great respect for the I.W.W. Far greater than I have for their infamous detractors.
Listen! There has just been published a pamphlet called “The Truth About the I.W.W.” It has been issued after long and thorough investigation by five men of unquestioned standing in the capitalist world. At the head of these investigators was Professor John Graham Brooks of Harvard University, and next to him John A. Fish of the Survey of the Religious Organizations of Pittsburgh, and Mr. Bruere, the government investigator. Five of these prominent men conducted an impartial examination of the I.W.W. To quote their own words they “followed its trail.” They examined into its doings beginning at Bisbee where the “patriots,” the cowardly business men, the arch-criminals, made up the mob that deported 1,200 workingmen under the most brutal conditions, charging them with being members of the I.W.W. when they knew it to be false.
It is only necessary to label a man “I.W.W.” to have him lynched as they did Praeger, an absolutely innocent man. He was a Socialist and bore a German name, and that was his crime. A rumor was started that he was disloyal and he was promptly seized and lynched by the cowardly mob of so-called “patriots.”
War makes possible all such crimes and outrages. And war comes in spite of the people. When Wall Street says war the press says war and the pulpit promptly follows with its Amen. In every age the pulpit has been on the side of the rulers and not on the side of the people. That is one reason why the preachers so fiercely denounce the I.W.W.
Take the time to read this pamphlet about the I.W.W. Don’t take the word of Wall Street and its press as final. Read this report by five impartial and highly reputable men who made their investigation to know the truth, and that they might tell the truth to the American people. They declare that the I.W.W. in all its career never committed as much violence against the ruling class as the ruling class has committed against the I.W.W.
You are not now reading any reports in the daily press about the trial at Chicago, are you? They used to publish extensive reports when the trial first began, and to prate about what they proposed to prove against the I.W.W. as a gigantic conspiracy against the government. The trial has continued until they have exhausted all their testimony and they have not yet proven violence in a single instance. No, not one! They are utterly without incriminating testimony and yet 112 men are in the dock after lying in jail for months without the shadow of a crime upon them save that of belonging to the I.W.W. That is enough it would seem to convict any man of any crime and send his body to prison and his soul to hell. Just whisper the name of the I.W.W. and you are branded as a disloyalist. And the reason for this is wholly to the credit of the I.W.W., for whatever may be charged against it the I.W.W. has always fought for the bottom dog. And that is why Haywood is despised and prosecuted while Gompers is lauded and glorified by the same gang.
Now what you workers need is to organize, not along craft lines but along revolutionary industrial lines. All of you workers in a given industry, regardless of your trade or occupation, should belong to one and the same union.
Political action and industrial action must supplement and sustain each other. You will never vote the Socialist republic into existence. You will have to lay its foundations in industrial organization. The industrial union is the forerunner of industrial democracy. In the shop where the workers are associated is where industrial democracy has its beginning. Organize according to your industries! Get together in every department of industrial service! United and acting together for the common good your power is invincible.
When you have organized industrially you will soon learn that you can manage as well as operate industry. You will soon realize that you do not need the idle masters and exploiters. They are simply parasites. They do not employ you as you imagine but you employ them to take from you what you produce, and that is how they function in industry. You can certainly dispense with them in that capacity. You do not need them to depend upon for your jobs. You can never be free while you work and live by their sufferance. You must own your own tools and then you will control your own jobs, enjoy the products of your own labor and be free men instead of industrial slaves.
Organize industrially and make your organization complete. Then unite in the Socialist Party. Vote as you strike and strike as you vote.
Your union and your party embrace the working class. The Socialist Party expresses the interests, hopes and aspirations of the toilers of all the world.
Get your fellow workers into the industrial union and the political party to which they rightly belong, especially this year, this historic year in which the forces of labor will assert themselves as they never have before. This is the year that calls for men and women who have courage, the manhood and womanhood to do their duty.
Get into the Socialist Party and take your place in its ranks; help to inspire the weak and strengthen the faltering, and do your share to speed the coming of the brighter and better day for us all.
When we unite and act together on the industrial field and when we vote together on election day we shall develop the supreme power of the one class that can and will bring permanent peace to the world. We shall then have the intelligence, the courage and the power for our great task. In due time industry will be organized on a cooperative basis. We shall conquer the public power. We shall then transfer the title deeds of the railroads, the telegraph lines, the mines, mills and great industries to the people in their collective capacity; we shall take possession of all these social utilities in the name of the people. We shall then have industrial democracy. We shall be a free nation whose government is of and by and for the people.
And now for all of us to do our duty! The clarion call is ringing in our ears and we cannot falter without being convicted of treason to ourselves and to our great cause.
Do not worry over the charge of treason to your masters, but be concerned about the treason that involves yourselves. Be true to yourself and you cannot be a traitor to any good cause on earth.
Yes, in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world. We are going to destroy all enslaving and degrading capitalist institutions and re-create them as free and humanizing institutions. The world is daily changing before our eyes. The sun of capitalism is setting; the sun of socialism is rising. It is our duty to build the new nation and the free republic. We need industrial and social builders. We Socialists are the builders of the beautiful world that is to be. We are all pledged to do our part. We are inviting—aye challenging you this afternoon in the name of your own manhood and womanhood to join us and do your part.
In due time the hour will strike and this great cause triumphant—the greatest in history—will proclaim the emancipation of the working class and the brotherhood of all mankind.
Le dialogue social sous contrôle
▻https://laviedesidees.fr/Le-dialogue-social-sous-controle
Que recouvre la notion floue de « dialogue social » ? Comment se transforment ses pratiques et à quoi servent en définitive ces dispositifs d’échanges institutionnels ? Ce nouvel ouvrage de la collection Puf/Vie des idées dévoile ce qui se cache derrière les #Politique de réduction du « coût du travail ».
#État #syndicalisme #entreprise #conflits_sociaux #sociologie_du_travail
French Game Developers Allege Mismanagement, Go On Strike In Minecraft (And Real Life) - Aftermath
▻https://aftermath.site/spiders-mismanagement-strike-minecraft-greedfall
To hear French game dev union STJV tell it, workers at Spiders – the studio behind flawed but consistently-ambitious role-playing games like Greedfall, Steelrising, and The Technomancer – are not having a good time right now. Today the union published an open letter to management alleging a litany of deal-breaking issues at the company, which has been signed by 44 out of 95 Spiders staffers. Next week the studio will go on strike – (partially) in Minecraft.
#jeux_vidéo #jeu_vidéo #business #ressources_humaines #spiders #grève #jeu_vidéo_greedfall #jeu_vidéo_steelrising #jeu_vidéo_the_technomancer #jeu_vidéo_minecraft #syndicalisme #stjv
Spider, studio qui a eu droit à une expo assez longue au palais des beaux arts de #Lille.
Allemagne : Entre défense des profits et conscience climatique – IG Metall et la mutation écologique et sociale
Dans le cadre de la conversion sociale et écologique, il n’y a pas que la résistance du capital à surmonter, il y a aussi les réticences et pressions au sein des syndicats.
Hans Köbrich a travaillé de nombreuses années dans l’industrie automobile. Aujourd’hui à la retraite, il est toujours actif syndicalement et participe au groupe de travail sur l’internationalisme d’IG Metall Berlin, qui entretient et développe des relations internationales avec des partenaires au niveau des organisations de base. Le groupe de travail se préoccupe également beaucoup de la question « changement climatique et monde du travail », ce qui l’amène à organiser différentes initiatives de sensibilisation dans les entreprises et les syndicats.
Gerhard Klas s’est entretenu avec Hans Köbrich.
▻https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/le-modele-allemand-et-loffensive-contre-les-droits-sociaux/#comment-61780