|
This site made manifest by DadaIMC
software.
|
|
News :: struggles |
|
It's the class struggle, stupid! |
|
by Alex & Ajamu
Previously published: Ontario Common Cause
Keywords: Canada, class struggle |
07 Sep 2010
|
Organized labour in Ontario will continue to put forth a weak and
ineffective response to attacks from the ruling class as long as it
continues to ignore the reality of class struggle. |
Organized labour in Ontario will continue to put forth a weak and
ineffective response to attacks from the ruling class as long as it
continues to ignore the reality of class struggle. A perfect example
is its current response to a proposed two-year wage-freeze that the
Dalton McGuinty-led Ontario government plans on imposing on unionized
public sector workers. The provincial Liberals would like to save $750
million per year from a wage-freeze, so as to help manage the $19.3
billion budget deficit. Readers need not be reminded that this deficit
is the result of the risky financial speculations of the captains of
finance, industry and commerce that created the Great Recession of
2008.
But it is the 710,000 unionized members of the working class and
350,000 non-unionized managers and other employees who draw pay
cheques from the government[1] and the users of state-provided
services (and private sector workers) who are being asked to bear the
burden of paying for the actions of the corporate sector. At the same
time as this attempt to take income from the pockets of government
workers, the McGuinty Liberals' have granted a $4.6 billion tax-cut to
the business sector.
The leader of the Ontario New Democrats, Andrea Howarth, has signaled
her support for public sector workers' acceptance of a pay cut. She
asserts, "I'm quite sure when they get to the bargaining table they
will do their part like everyone else does ... there is a collective
bargaining process that has to be respected."[2] Wow! Who said that
the working-class needs enemies with "friends" like the New Democratic
Party (NDP) and its leader Andrea Horwarth?
However, it is the tame and even puzzling reaction of some of
Ontario's major labour leaders that should be of concern to workers in
the public sector. The government called labour leaders and employers
from the broader public sector to "consultation" talks on the wage
freeze on July 19, 2010. Coming out of the talks, this was what
CUPE-Ontario president Fred Hahn had to say, "This is not like the
early '90s, this is not about sharing the pain. That's all just not
true".[3] He was referring to former NDP premier Bob Rae's unilateral
opening of public sector workers' contracts and the imposition of
public sector wage-cuts accompanied by tax increases for the corporate
sector. Was Brother Hahn implying that a wage-freeze would be
tolerable, if accompanied by the cancelation of the $4.6 billion
corporate tax-cut?
No credible union or union leader should contemplate a zero-wage
increase over two years - even if the government rescinds the $4.6
billion tax-cut. There should not have been a tax-cut for the
capitalist class. Restoring the tax should not be used as a bargaining
chip to escape a wage-freeze on public sector workers.
Not to be outdone was the president of the Ontario Public Service
Employees' Union, Warren (Smokey) Thomas. We will leave it to you to
decipher the implicit message in the following statement by Smokey
Thomas. "Just because he [Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan] wants
something doesn't mean he's going to get it. It's not a social
contract. He can propose (a wage-freeze) but he has to bargain it. He
can't legislate it. He'll lose."[4] Is it just us or does that sound
like a labour leader who is not really in a fighting spirit and just
wants to make a deal?
A simple matter of misguided policy?
However, the critical issue for Ontario's public sector workers is the
extent to which many of our labour leaders seem to be completely
unaware of the state and employers' motives for disciplining labour
through wage concessions. Ismael Hossein-zaded of Drake University
made the following observation, which is quite applicable to the
posturing of labour leaders in Ontario:
"Viewing the savage class war of the ruling kleptocracy on the
people's living and working conditions simply as "bad" policy, and
hoping to somehow--presumably through smart arguments and sage
advice--replace it with the "good" Keynesian policy of deficit spending
without a fight, without grassroots" involvement and/or pressure,
stems from the rather naïve supposition that policy making is a simple
matter of technical expertise or the benevolence of policy makers,
that is, a matter of choice. The presumed choice is said to be between
only two alternatives: between the stimulus or Keynesian deficit
spending, on the one hand, and the Neoliberal austerity of cutting
social spending, on the other."5
Based on some of the statements coming from labour leaders, they may
not have gotten the memo that the attack on the working-class (through
the slashing of social programme spending, attacks on private sector
pensions and wage freezes) is not about good or bad economic policies.
Hossein-Zedad must have been inspired to write his paper after reading
the following Keynesian-inspired comment by Ontario Federation of
Labour president Sid Ryan; "From a policy perspective, it makes no
economic sense whatsoever. You've got a government saying we need to
stimulate the economy. The best way of stimulating the economy is
through public-sector workers who spend every single penny of their
disposable income in their local communities,"[6] But it's not about
the economy, per se. It's the class struggle, stupid!
Canada's economic and political elite have clearly given up the ghost
of Keynesian economics, which calls on government to either stimulate
or restrict the demand for goods and services based on the state of
the economy. In the case of the 2008 crisis in capitalism, these
neoliberal players felt forced by the magnitude of the impending
financial collapse to pump money into the economy. A
not-too-insignificant fact was lost on many observers and commentators
who gleefully cheered on the capitalist class' "Road-to-Damascus"
moment. The capitalist state in Canada and other imperialist countries
will do everything within their power to maintain a business
environment that facilitates the accumulation of capital or
profit-making, as well as legitimize the system in the eyes of the
people. That is all in a day's work for the state...no surprise here for
class conscious trade unionists and other activists!
Labour's "Response"
We ought to note that the recent crisis in the economy caught
organized labour off-guard and ill-prepared to mobilize the
working-class against that monumental failure of capitalism. For
decades, Western corporations and governments have been force-feeding
the public a steady diet of tax-cuts. Lower taxes on businesses,
high-income earners and the wealthy, the widespread slashing of social
services and income support programmes, a massive reduction in state
oversight and regulation of corporations and the enactment of
anti-union policies and legislation have been the all rage since
corproations and Western governments abandoned their
class-collaborationist pact with organized labour in the 1970s. Yet at
the very moment when capitalism experienced a crisis of confidence
resulting from a set of policies that had been hailed as perfect
ingredients for economic and social progress, organized labour was
caught with its pants down. Its leaders didn't have a class struggle
alternative to Keynesian economics - an economic tendency that was
never intended to be used as a tool to end wage slavery and the
minority rule of bankers, industrialists and the managerial and
political elite.
Presently, the labour movement is ideologically and operationally
ill-prepared to effectively face down the two-year wage-freeze demand
from the McGuinty Liberals. Unfortunately, labour's leaders have, in
the main, focused on narrow economic demands rather than seeking to
politically develop union activists and their broader membership
behind a class struggle labour movement platform. Union members have
been politically deskilled and demobilized in favour of a social
service model of trade unionism. These labour leaders have failed to
use their unions' courses, workshops, week-long schools, publications
and other educational resources to educate members of the fact that
they are a part of a distinct class with economic and political
interests that are different from that of the rulers of capitalist
society.
Even the most casual of observers understand that organized labour's
raison d'être is to champion the material concerns of the
working-class. And yet, ideologically-speaking, most labour leaders in
Canada have cast their lot in with capitalism - albeit a more
Scandinavian version. This is why a coherent critique of capitalism is
notably absent from most union-organized workshops and events. It
should therefore not come as a surprise that many union members have
swallowed the employers and politicians' message that Canada is a
largely middle-class country and that our collective aspiration should
be to remain a member of this class. If the labour leaders, academics
and the media say that the majority of Canadians are a part of the
middle-class, it must be so. The development of a working-class
consciousness becomes very difficult (but not impossible) in this kind
of political environment.
The great majority of Canadians are members of the working-class. They
sell their labour, exercise little to no control over how their
work-life is organized, have no say over how the profit from their
labour is distributed and are so alienated from work that the aphorism
"Thank god it's Friday" has its own acronym. One should never define
middle-class status as one's ability to purchase consumer trinkets,
live in a mortgaged home or even own a summer cottage. Middle-class
status ought to be defined by one's exercise of power and control
and/or the possession of high levels of human capital found among
administrative/managerial elites in the private and public sectors,
academic elites and independent professionals.
Labour's Credibility Crisis
The narrow economic obsession of labour leaders was on plain display
when Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan revealed the March 2010
Budget. When it became known that the McGuinty Liberals would be
seeking a two-year wage-freeze from public sector workers, this news
was all that consumed the attention of most labour leaders. Many
labour functionaries scrambled around in search of external and
internal legal opinions, requesting briefs from senior staff on the
impact of a wage-freeze on bargaining in specific sectors and sending
out correspondence to members assuring them to "just act as if nothing
had happened", because they're "already covered by a collective
agreement". Many labour union offices' and unionized workplaces'
anxiety was centred entirely on the desired wage-freeze by the
McGuinty Liberals. Nothing else!
But today we hear labour leaders talking about keeping money in
workers' pockets to stimulate the economy and that their primary
concern is maintaining public services at adequate levels. Why didn't
organized labour deploy its resources to educate and mobilize the
public against the $4.6 billion corporate tax-cuts, slashing of $4
billion in transportation infrastructure spending from Metrolinx's
$9.3 billion budget7] and the scrapping of the special diet allowance
that benefitted over 160,000 members of the working-class for the
unprincely sum of $250 million per annum and a mere monthly average of
$130 per person[8]? The provincial government anticipates that the
two-year wage-freeze across the public sector will net a savings of
$1.5 billion - yet the previous $8.6 billion effectively stolen from
the working class failed to push organized labour into action.
The leaders of organized labour did not have the imagination to
energize their members and the broader citizenry in alliance with
other social movement organizations over the Budget. They could have
exposed the class priorities of the McGuinty Liberals. The
government's main concerns clearly have nothing to do with those of us
who are poor, live from pay cheque to pay cheque and do not patronize
the golf courses where McGuinty and his friends hang out when they are
not screwing the public. Listen up public sector labour leaders: the
people will not be fooled by your claims to be advocating for the
general interest. The broader working-class just have to simply see
where you direct the labour movement's resources and they will clue
into the issues that are being prioritized. Take a look at the poor,
working-class and/or racialized areas that are likely to be affected
by the $4 billion cut to Metrolinx's budget:
"...the austerity moves could affect five planned projects: rapid
transit lines for Finch Ave. W., Sheppard Ave. E. and the Scarborough
RT, along with the Eglinton Ave. cross-town line and an expansion of
York region's Viva service".[9]
Are we to believe that a class-struggle and anti-oppression informed
public education, organizing and mobilization campaign in defense of
public services, the social wage and a livable wage would not have had
some level of traction with the people of Ontario?
An alternative economic plan or a different labour movement?
In some quarters of the trade union sector, there are talks of
presenting an alternative plan to the slash-and-burn neoliberal
policies of the provincial government. But, the presentation of
Keynesian economic proposals by labour leaders is useless in a climate
where the ruling class doesn't feel threatened by a politically
mobilized population, especially without "compelling grassroots
pressure on policy makers".[10] We implied earlier that labour unions
have a credibility gap with the broader public if they now assert a
desire to "broaden the debate, educate community members and local
politicians with a view to engaging in actions that protect public
services and build strong communities" as outlined by one union. What
would be the purpose of the alternative plans of these labour leaders?
The status quo of the 1930s to the 1960s that gave rise to the welfare
state is not a transformative option.
There is no such thing as a "contextless" context. Where is the
necessary political environment that would force the state to make
concessions to the working-class out of fear that they maybe inclined
to embrace revolutionary options? When some labour leaders are loosely
talking about coming up with an alternative (Keynesian economic plan?)
stimulus proposal, they would do well to understand the political
implications of the following statement:
"Keynesian economists seem to be unmindful of this fundamental
relationship between economics and politics. Instead, they view
economic policies as the outcome of the battle of ideas, not of class
forces or interests. And herein lies one of the principal weaknesses
of their argument: viewing the Keynesian/New Deal/Social Democratic
reforms of the 1930s through the 1960s as the product of Keynes' or
F.D.R.'s genius, or the goodness of their hearts; not of the
compelling pressure exerted by the revolutionary movements of that
period on the national policy makers to "implement reform in order to
prevent revolution," as F.D.R. famously put it. This explains why
economic policy makers of today are not listening to Keynesian
arguments--powerful and elegant as they are--because there would be no
Keynesian, New Deal, or Social-Democratic economics without
revolutionary pressure from the people."[11]
However, when labour leaders shy away from speaking openly about
class-struggle and the nature of our economic system, we have a
serious problem. It means that they are not in a position to
facilitate a class-struggle, democracy-from-below and self-organizing
form of trade unionism.
In order fight this attack on the working-class of Ontario, the labour
movements' rank-and-file activists, progressive leaders and principled
labour socialists must engage in shop-floor education, organizing and
mobilizing that is centred on a class-struggle, anti-racist and
anti-oppression campaign. This approach to labour activism must be
done in alliance with progressive or radical social movement
organizations among women, racialized peoples, indigenous peoples,
youth, students, LGBT community, climate/environmental justice,
independent and revolutionary labour organizations, anti-authoritarian
formations, and radical intellectuals. It must be an alliance based on
mutual respect, sharing of approaches to emancipation and resources
and a commitment to the value that the oppressed are the architect of
and the driving force behind the movement for their emancipation. It
is essential that organized labour open up and transform its
leadership and decision-making structures to accommodate the full
inclusion of its membership, in all their diversity.
In most of our unions and locals, this means starting from the
beginning and we can use this current crisis to take those first
steps. There is a lot of frustration among union members and community
activists over the inaction of labour's leadership in the face of this
attack - and a desire to do something about it. That frustration and
desire can be channeled into building cross-union "fight back
committees" that bring together trade union and community activists in
a city or town, such as members of the Greater Toronto Workers
Assembly have already begun to do in that city. The "fight back
committees" can give us a capacity to act independently from organized
labour's leadership. And probably our first acts should be to organize
general assemblies in our locals and town hall meetings in our
communities to promote a working-class view of the economic crisis and
to mobilize our fellow workers and neighbours around militant,
grassroots resistance to the McGuinty government and all the forces
promoting a new round of austerity for the working-class.
Nothing less than a self-organizing, class-struggle approach to trade
unionism will put labour in a position to fight in the here-and-now,
while building the road we must travel on our way to the classless and
stateless society of the future.
Alex Diceanu is a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees,
Local 3906 and a graduate student at McMaster University. Ajamu
Nangwaya is a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Locals
3907 and 3902 and a graduate student at the University of Toronto.
Both authors are members of the Ontario anarchist organization, Common
Cause. |
See also:
http://linchpin.ca/
|
|
|
 Add comments |
Email this Article
|
 Printer friendly format
|
|
