Neo-Liberalism

Neo-Liberalism does seem to be a partial misnomer for the era beginning in the early 70s. I imagine the term originated from the French "néo-liberalisme" that was coined by the French organization ATTAC in the early 90s, before passing into Spanish. Now, in the spectrum of French politics, "libéral" means exactly the same as "laissez faire" in the US. Whereas the English term "liberal" means ... progressive.

Which has always caused no end of confusion. The latest instance being the numerous conservative French people who describe their political views on Facebook as "Liberal", thinking it means "anti-Socialism", and are then extremely surprised to receive invitations to join the "Free Mumia Abu-Jamal" cause.

Just as, by the way, the term "libertarian" means exactly the same as "laissez faire" in English, but means "Anarcho-Communist" in French...

So a bad translation to begin with (neo-liberal), but that's just the English teacher speaking. The heart of the problem is how you define neo-liberalism.

There has been a strong class offensive on the part of Capital from the 70s to the 2010s, which was, as always, precipitated by equally strong pressures on the variable and constant side of capital that threatened to slow down the accumulation of capital and potentially affect the rate of profit.

Capital responded by downsizing and outsourcing, opening vast new markets, and, but this is NOTHING NEW, also trying to use financial capital to augment the time between the successive phases of the capitalist cycle : production, realization of surplus and productive investment.

Nothing new, because the pattern of capital accumulation in the second half of the 19th century was very much the same. Banks became the main stock owners and the main drive for routing and equalizing capital between the different branches of production. And each crisis, 1847, 1857, 1864, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1900, 1907, was caused by the mightiest banks of the time going bankrupt and familiar "run on banks" episodes.

And each time, governments had to be lobbied to bail out the capitalists, much to the disgust of the general public. So in that sense, "neo-liberalism" is, IMHO, similar to the era of the robber barons.

What had changed was the perception born in the 1940s-1960s that Capitalists were accountable to the General public, and not the lowly rabble of the 1880s that did not have a say in the management of public affairs. Corruption had become less brazen after the second world war, and a sense of utter privilege was not welcome anymore (although it continued to exist). The Capitalist class's open attack on Labour in the 1970s-2010s thus came as a shock to a public opinion that had forgotten the way public offices had been openly sold to the highest bidder in the Tammy Hall years of the 19th century and how the Pinkertons would casually open fire on strikers at every opportunity.

After the defeat of Nazism, the declaration of Human Rights, the introduction of the Welfare State, there was a sense of bewilderment at the fact that corporations were once more flouting their viciousness and their profit-maximizing agenda, without any regard for the fate of the rest of the planet. Organized labour, which had painfully learned how to face aggressive Capitalism in the 1870s-1930s, was now completely taken by surprise by the new onslaught. It still hasen't recovered its capacity for autonomous working class combat, but it will, eventually...

The current austerity measures are clearly seen by the global working class as unfair, as they follow on the heels of a massive bailout of financial institutions. The working class though still has to re-invent the wheel, so to speak, and return to more combative unions.

Ideologically, THEIR interests are now quite distinct from OUR interests, in the common man's mind, so at least the demonstration of the corruptness and mendacity of governments is no longer a prerequisite. What now remains for the global working class is to overcome despair and organize.

Aux origines du 1er mai : Les Etats-Unis au temps des robber barons et l'Association Internationale des Travailleurs

Les robber barons, les barons brigands, ce sont les grands magnats du capitalisme triomphant qui profitent de la gigantesque expansion industrielle que connaît les USA dans la seconde partie du 19ème siècle pour amasser des fortunes colossales.
Le gouvernement est entièrement dans la poche de la classe capitaliste et met en place une politique du “laissez faire” qui rejette en bloc toute réglementation à caractère sociale.
Les faveurs électorales sont ouvertement mises aux enchères. La politique apparaît comme un système de corruption généralisée où les grosses fortunes mettent le pays en coupe réglée, et où même le parti travailliste-populiste de l'époque, le Greenback-Labour Party, est dans la poche des puissants.
Les grands industriels de l'époque, Rockfeller, Morgan ou Gould, écrasent les grèves ouvrières en donnant aux grévistes “des balles à bouffer” et se vantent de pouvoir “embaucher la moitié de la classe ouvrière pour fusiller l'autre moitié”.

Décus des maigres résultats obtenus par le parti travailliste-populiste et rendus furieux par la répression meurtrière des grandes grèves de 1877 dans le secteur des chemins de fer, des militants du Parti Socialiste Ouvrier (Socialist Labor Party), surtout allemands et tchèques, commencent à débattre de la “question de la violence”. Bien que les dirigeants du SLP rejettent la violence et prônent une alliance éléctorale avec le parti Travailliste-Populiste, certains militants s'organisent en “unions d'éducation et de combat” (Lehr-und-Wehr-Vereine). Ce sont des clubs de tir où des ouvriers s'initient aux armes à feu.

Pendant ce temps, à Londres, un congrès international d'anarchistes fonde en 1881 l'Association Internationale des Travailleurs/International Working People's Association (AIT/IWPA), qui se veut l'héritier direct de la 1ère internationale des travailleurs.

Cette nouvelle internationale trouve un terreau fertile parmi le prolétariat sur-exploité des USA et les membres américains prennent le nom de “révolutionnaires sociaux” (social revolutionaries) pour se démarquer des courants réformistes et électoralistes.
Les principaux agitateurs “révolutionnaires sociaux” sont Albert Parsons et sa compagne métisse Lucy Parsons, August Spies, Adolf Fischer, George Engel, Samuel Fielden, Oscar Neebe et Michael Schwab, bref, les futurs “martyres de Chicago” qui payeront très cher leur engagement.
Ces révolutionnaires sont à pied d’œuvre principalement à Chicago, le centre industriel des Etats-Unis de l'époque. Ils diffusent des tracts révolutionnaires et s'adressent à des milliers d'ouvriers sur les piquets de grève.
En 1883, le congrès de Pittsburgh de l'AIT établit une organisation solide et un programme révolutionnaire, le manifeste de Pittsburgh.
Les ouvriers qualifiés et les artisans de Chicago, menacés par la mécanisation et l'automatisation des grandes usines, rejoignent l'AIT et fondent de nombreux syndicats (métallurgie, ébénisterie, …) regroupés dans la Chicago Central Labour Union (L'union centrale des syndicats de Chicago). Qui dépasse rapidement en nombre d'adhérents les vieux syndicats réformistes.
Pour eux, le syndicalisme est à la fois le moyen pour atteindre une société communiste et un exemple vivant de ce à quoi une société fondée sur la coopération devrait ressembler. Ces militants de Chicago sont en fait les premiers à formuler les idées du syndicalisme révolutionnaire et de l'anarcho-syndicalisme.
L'électoralisme et le réformisme sont leurs principales cibles. Les élections sont considérées comme “la plus grande des foutaises”.
Comme à cette époque, les hommes de mains et les tueurs à gage des grands capitalistes (la Pinkerton agency, la Coal and Iron Police) n’hésitent pas à “donner un régime de balles à bouffer” aux grévistes, la question de la violence révolutionnaire est une autre de leurs préoccupations. Si tous les membres de l'AIT ne sont pas pour la lutte armée, de grandes figures telles que Lucy Parson, n'hésitent pas à conseiller aux vagabonds, aux mendiants et aux chômeurs d' “apprendre à utiliser la dynamite”. Et chaque fois que les milices patronales tirent sur une foule de grévistes, comme lors de la grève des mineurs de l'Ohio, “l'armement des travailleurs pour contrer les parasites capitalistes” revient à l'ordre du jour.
Naturellement, l'anti-électoralisme et l'apologie de la violence, coûtent à l'AIT le soutien de nombreux ouvriers, qui considèrent le vote comme la seule façon d'améliorer les conditions d'existence des travailleurs.
Cependant, à partir de 1884, l'AIT décide de soutenir et de développer l'agitation pour la journée de 8 heures. Cela ne se fait pas sans un certain nombre de débats internes sur le caractère “réformiste” de cette campagne.
La lutte pour la journée de 8 heures prend une ampleur considérable avec des centaines de milliers d'ouvriers en grève dans le cœur manufacturier de l'Amérique et un nombre grandissants de militants choisissent de se ranger aux côtés de l'AIT.

La classe dirigeante décide alors d'éliminer les principaux militants de l'AIT à Chicago. Et c'est ainsi que Spies, Parsons, Engel, Fischer, Lingg, Fielden, Neebe et Schwab seront tenus responsables de la bombe lancée lors du rassemblement de Haymarket en mai 1885 et condamnés à mort, au cours d'un procès délirant où le procureur déclare que c'est “l'anarchisme qu'il faut condamner”. Spies, Parsons, Engel, Fischer, Lingg seront pendus le 11 novembre 1886 (le black Friday , vendredi noir). Ils furent par la suite officiellement innocentés, mais leur mort avait outré les socialistes du monde entier et fait d'eux les “martyres de Chicago”. Le premier mai devint la fête des travailleurs en leur mémoire.

Libya : People's power + vast oil reserves = ???

Interestingly enough, popular committees are running the eastern
cities of Libya and are attempting to coordinate their actions. That's
one of the many good things to come out of Gadaffi's downfall : people's
assemblies have become tools ready to be used by genuine ... people.
But to what extent will the new tribal chiefs, military officers, former ministers, jurists, imams and "intellectuals" that have recently come to prominence be ultimately accountable before and controlled by the popular assemblies in their respective localities ? And what about
Socialism in such an oil-rich country ?

For the time being, each city's local council is ensuring the arrival of food
and supplies, setting up communications, getting local electricty plants
to function normally and providing for their local defense needs by having army
units and anti-Gaddafi fighters organize themselves into a coherent
local defense militia.
Moreover, Socialism appears to be an accepted idea, as all citizens
are aware that they get their wealth from oil, and that the proceeds of
such wealth should come back to the people.
So despite all the flux of civil war, the citizens of Libya have got two
ideas clearly in mind : a) local government answerable to the people and
b) ownership of the billions of dollars of proceeds from oil.
They feel Gaddafi failed them on both a) and b). But, alas, once a new
pro-Western government comes into place, they will once again be
deprived from a) and b). But maybe that's why there is so much chaos in
Libya, as the people do have a pretty good idea of a) and b) and will
not be relinquishing their weapons soon.
Libya could become an interesting experiment in people's power. If, of course,
a new government and corrupt officials intent on stealing the oil wealth for themselves
(and foreign interests) don't step in and take charge. Let's see how the class
struggle unfolds in Libya.

Nationalistic game

The message has been scrambled. Can you help the
Nationalist/Anti-Imperialist head of state put the pieces back into
their proper sequence so that he can get the message out to the people ?

"to be convened over the coming months"
"yes, mistakes have been made,"
"the next meeting of the State Council and the proposed legislative
changes"
"we accept our part of responsibility for the mistakes"
"within the framework of the constitution"
"they will be severely punished, to the full extent of the law"
"orders were not carried out as they should have"
"and we acknowledge the seriousness of the mistakes"
"Foreign states are working behind the scenes to divide us"
"will strive to correct these mistakes"
"some high-ranking officials are guilty of corruption"
"More freedom will be granted and the legitimate demans of the masses
will be addressed"
"I would like all citizens to be patient"
"the people must not fall for these ploys mastermined by foreign
imperialist media"
"we must trust in the strength of our people, united, and to the
valiance of our armed forces, to weather this storm"
"and to return to their work duties knowing that they are helping build
a new, greater country"

Social networks and "leaderless" revolutions

Leaderless Revolution sounds amazing. Sounds like Council Communism come
true : workers organize THEIR OWN revolution, self-manage their own
affairs, take over from the bosses and run the factories in the
interests of the Working Class. The dream of so many Revolutionary
Syndicalists (IWW, CGT, CNT, ...) come true.

However, "lederless" does mean "rudderless". I mean, workers
demonstrating for bread and an end to a promised lifetime of
humiliation, powerlessness and misery, are conscious of who their enemy
is : the bourgeoisie. But they also need to be aware of their own
strength, of their capacity to organize by themselves and of their
ability to REPLACE THE BOURGEOISIE. Such a degree of class consciousness
emerges from the class struggle, is primarily fostered by union activity
empowering people in the workplace to say f*** you to the boss, and
necessitates organizing from the bottom-up throughout a whole nation.
Workers assemble, debate, get info from other localities, debate, call
for regional assemblies, debate, draw up proposals, debate, send these
proposals to the regional assemblies, etc.
Twitter can immensely assist in this task, by making the flow of
information bi-directional. A clear picture of what is going on and the
contributions of each region can rapidly enable workers to form a
picture of the global situation and further their local debates. How
many tanks ? How many weapons ? Which local lackey has fled ? Which
factories are in revolt ? What are the international reactions ? Who is
trying to betray the revolution ?
So social networks are forging the demise of Capitalism (I'm not
kidding). They are the main force driving the increased social
inter-connectedness of workers as opposed to the Capitalist forces
striving to individualize, separate, monitor, transform each worker into
an interchangeable automaton. Marx knew that the social organization
necessary for Capitalism was at the same time the ultimate limit of that
mode of production. Capitalism brings together billions of individuals,
interconnects them through production, and yet limits their dealings
with each other by mediating them through market forces. That is a
contradiction. No man is an island anymore. By providing a means for
workers to communicate INSTANTLY the world over, Capitalism is extending
the process of bringing together disparate producers into a single
factory that meant that workers became suddenly aware of their potential
in the late 19th century. The whole world has been brought into a single
factory, with manufacturing in China, retail in California, accountancy
in Bangalore, advertising in London, ... But now, workers can
communicate with each other, something Marx would have found wonderful
in the extreme.
Soon twitting will be used for precisely that purpose : to galvanize a
revolution, to bring re-enforcements where they are needed, to relay
calls for workers' councils, to express the rage and frustration of
millions, to re-kindle hope, to help a factory restart production under
workers' management, to thwart secret dealings by the bosses and the
army, to indicate which army units are defecting, where weapons are to
be found, to organize the mass encirclement of Army barracks by hundreds
of thousands of civilians...
The only card THEY can play is always the same : Nationalism. Listen to
US, trust in US, obey US. OUR trump cards are of course CLASS and
INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY.

bye bye dictators

The struggle is global and increasingly so. What has happened on the
streets of Athens, Paris, Dhaka, Cairo, Tunis, Shanghai, is a global
reaction to the increased exploitation of labour by capitalism since
2007. And the dawning realization that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE for the
working class, especially not cozy retreat into NAtionalism and
Keynesianism in the face of bare-faced corruption and whole-scale
plunder by the elites. The working class, on a global basis, is now very
much conscious of the fact that the elite intend to pummel it into
obedience through the threat of mass unemployment. The reserve army of
Capitalism has become the most potent weapon to keep the rabble in line,
and people the world over are being pushed back to accept wages that can
barely enable the reproduction of labour power. In every industrial park
around the world, you will hear workers openly state that THEY have got
the upper hand and that WE are divided, fearful, angry, but that events
are coming to a head.
Bangladesh, China, USA, Indonesia, Europe, India : workers are bitterly
resentful and lament the fact that their unions are led by bureaucracies
that are part and parcel of the establishment. Following the Tunisian
example, workers are setting themselves alight in front of workplaces
all over the globe.
They are not stupid, they do not equate "free and fair elections" with
emancipation, even though they welcome the end of feared dictators with
trepidation. But there is something more in their thirst for "democracy"
than simply casting a ballot and cheering tanks on the streets.
NAtionalism is not going to solve unemployment, AND THEY KNOW IT,
although they recognize NAtionalist politicians as taking steps in teh
right direction by curbing the power of the corrupt elites linked to the
interests of transnationals.
But again, the global working class is not stupid, and if anything, is
more aware than ever of the fact that those who rule it are self-serving
politicians.
I'm not going to start preaching again about self-management and
workers' councils, but ultimately, THAT is the only possible outcome
that can really destroy the foundations of Capitalism (wage labour and
division at the production level). It will take a renewed bout of
experimentation, what with the 60-70s so far behind us, and the 2010s so
menacingly full of heightened control over the workforce and decreased
levels of unionizing.

Well, Leonardo Kosloff seems to have it spot on with his calls for

>>"the issue of making the
struggle a bit more “scientific” (sorry if that sounds “bombastic”),
with more “independent
research” and no indoctrination. So, for instance, I want to question
the views
a lot of people on the left have about monopoly capital and other
versions of 3rd
wordlist Marxist nationalism, not because I am for a US invasion of Cuba
to end
the Castroist dictatorship, or whatever people wanna call it, but, on
the
contrary, because keeping ourselves illusioned about post-capitalism in
an
abstract ideological propagandistic struggle helps neither Cubans nor
the left
here to understand “what is to be done”.

Workers of the World : Follow the Egyptian example !

Disgusted by Obama's speech on Egypt ? "We have always had a strong
relationship with Egypt" and "We will work with their [the Egyptian
people's] government for a future of freedom, justice and democracy".

Posted on Marxmail by Manuel Barrera :

Obama's and Secretary Clinton's statements are codewords for calling on Mubarak (or whomever is set up to replace Mubarak) to conduct a crackdown on the insurgent masses, especially any sectors that challenge the U.S./Egypt collaboration that maintains the Israel regime. There is a method to these seemingly innocuous statements--position oneself for supporting any military or oligarchical factions to suppress in the name of "curbing violence" the rising revolutionary tide soon to spread even further.


Solidarity actions, no matter how small are important work, right now, to register that there are supporters of the Egyptian people (and Tunisian, Yemeni, Jordanian, and other peoples of the Middle East). In the U.S., there are actions so far called for tomorrow in San Francisco ( NOON gathering at Market & Montgomery), Chicago (2 pm, Egyptian Consulate), and online petition efforts (http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_egypt/?rc=fb). There must be others (U.K., Ireland, France?) and I wonder how Cuba and the Latin American states are responding?


Here is a chance to register our support to a revolutionary upsurge that speaks to our own problems of economic crisis and of the attacks on democratic rights [in "post-industrialized"
nations"].

These are times made for us !