the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
the Voice of
The Communist League of Revolutionary Workers–Internationalist
“The emancipation of the working class will only be achieved by the working class itself.”
— Karl Marx
Jan 26, 2009
For most workers, January 20 didn’t come a moment too soon. George Bush, who had presided over two murderous wars and several waves of wild speculation that finally ended in last September’s financial collapse, was leaving.
Equally, a large part of the population was glad to see another symbol of this country’s horribly racist history fall, when Barack Obama walked into the White House.
But symbols are still symbols. And reality is still harsh.
Obama’s election to the presidency shows that the doors have been thrown open to a part of the black population. Those who come from privileged backgrounds have now reached the seats of power–in the White House and in some of the biggest Wall Street banks. But for the big majority of black working people, the oppression of class still remains–as it does for Hispanic and white workers–and class oppression is reinforced with the remnants of segregation, Jim Crow and violent racism.
Nonetheless, Obama’s inauguration engendered hopes in the population.
Obama, himself, in his speech on January 20, played on those hopes, talking about plans for the future, promising radical changes, promising to “pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and start all over again.”
But the disclaimer in Obama’s speech came in his warning, repeated several times, that change would not come easily, nor soon.
And the practical kernel of his speech came in his repeated calls for “sacrifice” for the common good.
Sacrifice by whom? Nowhere in Obama’s whole speech did he call on corporations to forego their profits, rather than lay off a worker, or for banks to forego their profits, rather than foreclose on another mortgage.
But he did call for “the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours–that is, cut their pay–than see a friend lose his job.”
Was it an oversight that only workers were called on for sacrifice? Not hardly. It simply reflected the lines of the economic program that Obama had announced the week before and of the bank bailout he had helped push through starting months before.
Nor was it an oversight when Obama didn’t announce that he would remove all troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office–his one-time campaign pledge. He had junked that promise over a year ago, replacing it with a call to shift troops from Iraq to a wider war in Afghanistan, and even into Pakistan. And his actions immediately after taking office made that point clear, when he ordered two missile strikes into Pakistan, killing at least 18 civilians.
Nor was it an unhappy coincidence that Obama dredged up the specter of terrorism, trying in his speech to rally the population against unnamed and unknown enemies. When he declared, “we will defeat you,” he was taking a page right out of Bush’s book.
Campaign promises forgotten, Obama has assumed the presidency. Just like all those white presidents before him, he is carrying out the policies the ruling class wants–a continuation of the same economic policies and the same wars that have created this catastrophic situation. And he’s doing it at the very moment when the whole situation cries out for a radical break.
Of course, it’s obvious one man can’t change everything at once. BUT, if Obama’s aim were to serve the interests of the whole working population, he would start. He would use the support he had in the election, and the even bigger support that he has today in the population, to start pushing through a program that forced those who caused the crisis to pay for it.
Government would push to make the banks and the wealthy pay for this speculation that has thrown this economy into a tailspin. Government would forbid companies to lay off another worker or to cut any more wages. Government would move to stop the wars immediately.
A president who intended to make government work in the interests of working people would have the support of the population for such a fight.
That isn’t what Obama is proposing. Just the opposite. Even before his inauguration, he was calling on people to put their hopes on hold, to wait, to make sacrifices for the common good.
But if the working class continues to make sacrifices, it will not be for the “common good.” It will be for the wealthy class that has already imposed too many sacrifices on the population.
In this situation, the worst thing for the working class to do would be to sit back and wait for “change” to arrive some time in the future. To get change that serves the interest of working people, the population will have to mobilize, to demand that its own needs be met–and immediately. It’s such a mobilization that can transform “hopes” into reality.
Jan 26, 2009
The state of California is on the verge of bankruptcy–or so say the politicians.
As of February 1, California will issue IOUs instead of tax refunds, student grants and welfare checks.
“IOU” is the new word politicians have come up with, so that they don’t have to say “scrip”–that dreaded word from the 1930s. But that’s what these IOUs are: pieces of paper that loan sharks will charge up to 30 or 40% to cash. By all appearances, we are increasingly entering another depression.
The financial crisis has certainly hit all state treasuries, but California seems to be in bigger trouble than others. In recent years, California officials had used the increased tax revenues from the real estate bubble to hide the size of the huge handouts they made to big corporations. Once that bubble started to burst, the state’s intake of tax money dropped sharply.
Then, like a one-two punch, another blow came. Day-to-day speculation by big banks and corporations finally caused the credit market to crash, and banks started to charge astronomical interest rates for loans. State and local governments, which always rely on loans to make their day-to-day payments, started to run out of cash.
So now, California–this much-praised “fifth largest economy in the world”–doesn’t even have enough cash to pay its own workers! Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has ordered most state workers to take two days off per month, which amounts roughly to a 10% pay cut.
Right now, California Republicans and Democrats are in the middle of a political game, arguing over what to cut, or what tax increase to impose on the population. But one thing is certain: when the politicians finally announce that “they have reached a compromise,” they intend to drop the ax on the working class, and especially on its poorest layers.
Besides IOUs and pay cuts, the only other proposals so far are deep cuts in education and public services, and increases in sales tax and car registration fees. And not a single word, from either political party, about stopping tax breaks and subsidies to big corporations!
The rich, in their endless drive to get richer more quickly, caused the whole economic crisis–and along with it the budget crises in California and other states. But the politicians still try to protect their rich buddies’ profits. And they have the nerve to demand that working people foot the bill!
Jan 26, 2009
On January 15, more than 700 people lined up for hours in Los Angeles to get 240 lottery tickets–not for some big jackpot, but for 58 subsidized apartments.
The apartments are not even cheap. The rent will cost up to $1,023 for a two-bedroom. But for the people in line and their families, even that is better than what they have now: small, decrepit apartments whose rent they can’t afford.
House prices are going down in California, but rent and mortgages have not, because interest rates are still high.
This is how capitalism works. The big banks and real estate interests try to protect and increase their profits, by making the workers and poor live worse–and pay more for it.
Jan 26, 2009
While Barack Obama campaigned for president, he talked about the importance of education and promised to revamp the national school system. But nominating Arne Duncan as Education Secretary shows just the opposite.
Duncan has been CEO of the Chicago Public Schools for the past eight years. During that time, he’s used Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” to close dozens of “underperforming” schools, always in poor or working class areas of the city. He didn’t try to improve them; he just closed them. The students were sent to other schools, and ALL of the teachers were fired, no matter what their individual track records were.
Once the schools were closed, the buildings were handed over for a song–to a variety of private organizations and companies that established charter schools.
These charter schools hired new college graduates and uncertified teachers with no experience. They couldn’t possibly be as qualified as the teachers they replaced–but they WERE a lot cheaper. And that’s what mattered most to Duncan and his friends who run these schools.
Even though the charter schools can pick and choose which students they admit, the students have done no better on standardized tests than the public schools they replaced–the same standardized tests used to justify closing the schools in the first place!
Over 80,000 students have been funneled out of the public schools into these unregulated charter schools, all with public school money–by the head of the public schools!
In the name of “reform,” Duncan has gutted the Chicago Public Schools and handed them over to private interests. He’s abandoned the education of tens of thousands of children, while allowing SOME people to make profits with public money.
This is what Duncan’s policy has been. Since Obama wants him for his Secretary of Education, this is the policy Obama wants for the country.
Change? Hope? It sounds like George W. Bush all over again!
Jan 26, 2009
Just last month, the state of Maryland announced that Maryland schools had made “remarkable improvements.” Five years ago, the state had increased funding by two billion dollars a year, putting most of it into the poorest school systems. About 80% of that money was spent to increase the number of teachers. Lo and behold, with lower class sizes, students in these schools performed much better in reading and math.
In the face of this success, what does Maryland Governor O’Malley propose to do? Cut the budget!!
Oh yeah, that makes sense. Because nothing fails like success!
Jan 26, 2009
First day in office, Obama announced he was freezing the pay of everyone in his administration with a salary over $100,000 a year. He declared, “During this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington.”
Yes, and we’re tightening them today, even yesterday, while federal salaries were just increased earlier this month and wouldn’t normally be increased until next January anyway!
Jan 26, 2009
During this election campaign, Barack Obama pledged that on Day One of his administration he would meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and order them to draw up plans for withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.
On Day One, he did meet by teleconference with military leaders, but he didn’t give the order. He said only, “I asked the military leadership to engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq” with NO time frame attached.
Obama’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates issued a statement saying various options were discussed, 16 months, 3 years or no date. And Ryan Crocker, ambassador to Iraq, issued a strong warning against a “precipitous” withdrawal from Iraq.
Put all that together and what have you got? The same smoke and mirrors Bush was so fond of!
On Day Two, Obama appointed one man, Richard Holbrooke, to be special envoy to both Afghanistan and Pakistan–two countries that have little in common other than the war the U.S. is carrying out against Afghanistan, a war which has spilled over into Pakistan. In that one appointment, Obama announced his intention to treat Afghanistan and Pakistan as one battlefield–a much wider war
On Day Three, to make his positions clear, Obama authorized new missile strikes on tribal villages in Pakistan, killing at least 10 civilians.
Obama campaigned on two main issues, his apparent opposition to U.S. wars, and on the economy. On the question of the war, it took him only three days to thumb his nose at what people believed he stood for.
Jan 26, 2009
The military met or exceeded their recruitment goals for the first time since 2004. It was a banner year–the Army exceeded its targets–bringing in 21,443 new soldiers. Did new recruits sign up because of patriotism? The war on terror? No. They signed up because they needed a job. The Department of Defense so much as admitted it. “When the economy slackens and unemployment rises and jobs become more scarce in civilian society, recruiting is less challenging,” observed the director of recruitment.
As casualties mounted in Iraq, recruitment went down. The military began to pull more tricks out of its bag to convince potential new recruits. The Army increased signing bonuses for recruits, accepted a greater number of people who had medical and criminal histories, and people who scored lower on entrance exams and those who failed to graduate for high school. They also increase the age limit from 35 to 42. This is not an exhaustive list, but it gives the idea.
The economy alone does not account for the military’s success in recent recruitment. The media has both hidden these wars and bombarded people with propaganda that the wars are almost over. Recruiters have been able to play on these illusions.
Apparently, this is what Obama meant by providing more jobs for Americans–offering the unemployed the possibility to become cannon fodder for the U.S.’s bloody wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Jan 26, 2009
Gas prices have gone up 10% from the national average of $1.67 a gallon in December to $1.85 a gallon. Usually, the experts explain that prices increase because supply is low and demand is high. Demand, however, has gone way down while some people are out of work and others are taking pay cuts.
A spokeswoman for AAA said: “...the continued increase in prices defies explanation as supply remains healthy and demand remains low.”
In fact, there is an explanation. It’s called SPECULATION. Obviously, all their excuses about shortages and China and so forth are seen in plain view–as lies. And the prized “supply and demand” theory of the market economy turns out to be more fiction than fact.
Jan 26, 2009
After three weeks of war, the Israeli government declared a unilateral truce and began to pull its troops out of the Gaza Strip. Israel used its overwhelming military superiority to leave behind a devastated country. In three weeks’ time, Gaza was turned into an absolute wasteland where the population no longer has the means to survive.
Hospital services already estimate that 1300 people have died either in the bombings or in the confrontations with the Israeli army. As the population searches through the rubble, they are uncovering many more bodies. The real number of victims is not yet known, but will undoubtedly grow.
Five thousand homes were destroyed, and 20,000 others damaged. The sewer system that carries away waste water is out of commission. A number of neighborhoods have no running water nor electricity. Public buildings and schools sit in piles of rubble.
The Gaza Strip has a very high population density (11,000 per square mile, comparable to New York City). It’s a huge lie for the Israeli army to claim its goal was just to attack Hamas fighters.
Some ask whether Israel or Hamas came out ahead in this violent aggression against the Palestinian population. If Israel’s goal was to weaken if not eradicate Hamas, as it claims, it didn’t succeed. It is not by bombing the population of Gaza that the Israeli government can destroy Hamas and make Hamas unpopular with Gazans. The belief that the inhabitants of Gaza will somehow hold Hamas responsible for the bombings is absurd. Those who have been bombarded will hold Israel, which bombed them, responsible, especially since Israel also continuously oppresses them, with no end in sight.
In Gaza, this oppression is translated into a million and a half Palestinians enclosed in a territory that is 25 miles long and averages six miles wide, with all borders–land, sea, and air–controlled by Israel. With Israel inflicting never-ending violence on the Palestinian population, no one could believe that the Israeli government actually wants to reinforce the side of the so-called moderate Palestinians.
Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority since January 2005, has never gained a single thing for the Palestinians, despite constant offers to negotiate. No matter how much moderation Abbas showed, he gained nothing from the Israelis, not about the status of Jerusalem, not on the plight of the refugees, not on the ongoing settlements nor on the construction of the wall. In these circumstances, it’s absurd to say that some bombs can reduce or annihilate the influence of Hamas, whose hold on the Palestinian population is absolutely reinforced by the intransigence of Israel.
In fact, the real object of the Israeli government was–one more time–to terrorize the Palestinian population, punishing them for not being docile enough to suit Israel.
“Israel is at peace with itself,” the Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni just stated. It is the peace of the grave for the Palestinians and a peace without hope for the Israeli people.
Jan 26, 2009
A certain number of Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, publicly protested the war in Gaza. On January 3, 50,000 Israeli Arabs demonstrated in Sakhnin in Galilee against Israeli intervention in Gaza and denounced the “betrayal by Egyptian President Mubarak.”
Some 300 members of Courage to Refuse, made up of refuzniks (members of the Israeli armed forces who refused to repress the Palestinians in previous wars and the majority of whom spent time in prison for this action) held a rally on January 10 in Tel Aviv, calling on current soldiers to refuse to participate in the war. As of January 11, seven reservists refused to respond to the call to go to war.
Some 1,800 Israeli Jews and Palestinians, of whom 500 live in Sderot, which has had the most rockets falling on it, signed a petition calling for the end of military operations in Gaza.
Further, a hundred Israeli students signed an open letter refusing to serve in the Israeli army, expressing their “opposition to the policy of occupation and oppression in the occupied territories.” They risk prison for this action.
This view is very much a minority one in Israel, but it represents an important breach in Israeli government propaganda.
Jan 26, 2009
The inauguration of Barack Obama as the new President of the U.S. has been presented in the media as the beginning of a new era–an era of “change,” as Obama himself has repeated countless times.
Undoubtedly, one part of the world toward which the U.S. desperately needs change to its policy is the Middle East. Just before the New Year, the Israeli military launched a massive attack, bombing and invading the heavily populated Gaza Strip.
So what did Obama say when civilians were being killed and their homes razed to the ground in Gaza? “We cannot have two administrations at the same time simultaneously sending signals in a volatile situation.” He avoided taking a position, in other words.
That’s not like the Barack Obama who did not hesitate a moment to take a position in support of the shameless, trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street. Nor is it like the Barack Obama who said that workers have to sacrifice to help out the auto bosses.
It was only a way to say that Bush and Obama have the same policy on the Middle East.
Jan 26, 2009
The current war is a new stage in the battle which the State of Israel today and the Zionist movement has all along waged against the national rights of the Palestinians. The permanent instability of the region results from the contradiction between the Zionist project of establishing a specifically Jewish state in Palestine and the presence in this same territory of an Arab population also demanding the recognition of its rights.
The idea of creating a specifically Jewish state took shape at the end of the 19th century, when Theodore Herzl claimed to want to give “a land without people to a people without land.”
Except that Palestine wasn’t an uninhabited land: 700,000 Palestinians lived there. Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire up to 1917. After Turkey’s defeat in World War I, Great Britain wanted to seize it, getting the League of Nations, predecessor to the United Nations, to give it a “mandate” to make Palestine a British colony. Applying its usual colonial policy, Great Britain played off the different parts of the population against one another, declaring that it favored a “Jewish national homeland” in Palestine.
Jewish immigration to the country could have been handled in an entirely different way, except that the Zionist leaders never wanted to share what was there, never wanted to construct a world where Jews and Arabs could live side by side.
On the contrary, the Zionist organizations that bought lands from the big feudal Arab landlords systematically expelled the peasants who had often cultivated the fields for generations.
The presence of a Jewish population, which grew between the two world wars, served the interests of British imperialism and the Arab feudal aristocracy. It diverted the anger of the poor masses toward a conflict with the Jewish settlers.
Between 1920 and 1935, many tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants, fleeing anti-Semitism and persecutions in Poland and then in Germany, settled in Palestine. This development of Jewish colonies was accompanied by numerous expropriations and expulsions, provoking anti-Jewish riots.
In the years that followed, Palestine was the scene of important social movements. During these events, the Zionist organizations chose to act as auxiliaries of the British repressive forces. In no case did they ally themselves with the Arab masses against the colonial power.
The end of the World War II saw thousands of survivors from the Nazi concentration camps flow into Palestine. Palestine appeared to them as the sole possible refuge because the victorious “democracies” effectively refused to open their doors to the Jewish survivors of Nazism.
Among the Zionist organizations, there were groups claiming to be revolutionary socialists, indeed communists, who said they would reach out to the Arab population. But they were a drop in the bucket of what was happening between Arabs and Jews. The traditional social democrats and the extreme right set the tone. At the end of World War II, the social democrats and the right-wingers joined together to start an armed struggle, leading, they hoped to the creation of a Jewish State. But this armed struggle was as much directed against the Palestinian Arabs as against the British occupiers. Extreme right Zionist organizations engaged in terrorist attacks against the British forces but also against the Arab population. The objective of those who put bombs in Arab markets was to terrorize the population, in order to make them flee Palestine.
At the end of 1947, the U.N. proposed the division of Palestine into two states, one Palestinian, the other Jewish. The neighboring Arab states, which would have liked to put their hands on Palestine, immediately intervened to oppose the U.N. proposal. But the young State of Israel emerged victorious from the conflict. It profited from the conflict to push its borders well beyond the partition plan of the U.N., occupying 78% of the Palestinian territory.
Some 700,000 to 800,000 Palestinians fled before the advance of Israeli troops, especially after the Israelis engaged in massacres, as in Deir Yassin where in April 1948 commando raiders massacred 254 old people, women and children. Menachem Begin, the former Israeli Prime Minister, took credit for this carnage in 1961. He rejoiced that out of 800,000 Arabs living in what would become Israel, only 165,000 remained at the end of hostilities. The others became refugees, parked in camps in the West Bank of the Jordan valley, in Gaza and in neighboring countries.
The Palestinian state never came into existence. Instead, the part of the territory which had been left to Palestine was turned over to Egypt and Jordan.
In 1967, Israel took the offensive during the so-called “Six Day War,” winning a victory over Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The conquered territories weren’t annexed but were placed under Israeli military occupation. East Jerusalem was integrated into Israel.
This military defeat of the Arab countries discredited them in the eyes of the Palestinians. Militias were set up in the refugee camps. The leading role in this movement was played by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasser Arafat, the leader of a group known as Fatah.
In his program, Arafat didn’t demand the overthrow of the social order in the future Palestine. His perspective, like that of the entire nationalist current, was to make imperialism and all the states of the region accept a Palestinian state.
In the mid-1970s, Arafat obtained a certain international recognition. But he had to wait until 1987 and the first Intifada (revolt of stones) to force Israel to negotiate with the PLO.
But no matter what concessions were offered, the Israeli state continued to encroach on the territory promised to the Palestinians. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority functioned in a drastically reduced territory. Throughout the West Bank, numerous Jewish settlements never stopped growing. The population of the Jewish settlers grew from 115,000 in 1993 to almost 500,000 today.
This settler policy of Israel’s undermined the authority of the PLO, which was incapable of carrying out any part of the 1993 Oslo Accords. It could not police those who resisted the Israeli occupation, and the PLO was riddled with the obvious corruption of some of its leaders. A growing part of the Palestinians turned toward an Islamist party, Hamas.
In the beginning, the Islamists restricted themselves to religious matters. Their principal enemy wasn’t the Israeli occupier, but rather other Palestinians, communist militants, secular militants or those they called “heathen.” At the beginning, Hamas benefitted from the benevolent neutrality of the Israeli authorities, who hoped in this way to lessen the influence of the PLO. The Islamists were legally allowed to receive subsidies from Saudi Arabia. They created hundreds of mosques and an Islamic university.
The turning point was 1987 with the first Intifada. Hamas rallied to the struggle because its leaders understood they risked being marginalized if their militants didn’t take part in the demonstrations. In 1993, Hamas distinguished itself from the PLO by opposing the Oslo Accords, which it denounced as a renunciation of Palestinian national objectives.
Ignoring Fatah as much as possible, the Israeli government pursued its policy of dispossessing the Palestinian population in the West Bank.
This policy led to the rise of Hamas, which in January 2006, became the leading Palestinian party. It took 45% of the votes in the election to the Palestinian consultative council. In June 2007, it took total control of Gaza.
The policy of the Israeli leaders not only transformed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into prisoners in their own country, it also put the Israeli population in the unenviable position of jailors, repeatedly called up for wars. It confirms the prediction of Trotsky in the 1930s, who saw in Zionism “a bloody trap.”
Jan 26, 2009
Constellation Energy, the parent company of Baltimore Gas and Electric, agreed to sell itself to Warren Buffett’s company in September of 2008. It had lost money speculating in energy prices, although in previous years it had made big profits by speculation. Buffet offered a one billion dollar loan it needed. In exchange, Mr. “Billionaire” Buffett got loan guarantees.
Four months later, Constellation Energy decided not to sell itself to Buffett. Instead it plans to sell its nuclear business to the French electricity giant, EDF. But Mr. Buffett not only got his billion-dollar loan back–he also got another 593 million dollars, from different fees, cash and interest payments. In other words, Buffett got close to 60% on this deal. What a deal-maker!
What happened to everybody else? Eight hundred people got laid off by Constellation. The bosses who had lost big money by speculating got to keep their jobs. And more than a million Baltimore Gas and Electric customers got a 70% electricity rate increase and natural gas price increases.
A perfect example of who benefits under capitalism.
Jan 26, 2009
Guadeloupe is a Caribbean island of 400,000 people that is an overseas department of France. The following article is from the January 23 issue of Lutte Ouvrière (Workers Struggle), the paper of the revolutionary workers group of that name active in France.
More than 40 Guadeloupean union, political and community organizations began a "renewable" general strike on January 20. It is a very broad popular mobilization.
More than 4,000 people, mostly workers, demonstrated that day in the capital Pointe-à-Pitre. The strike was massively supported in the workplaces. The Pointe-à-Pitre city hall was closed with 100% on strike. The same was true at the National Forestry Office, and in transportation, education and social security offices. A big hotel, Manganau, was completely shut, with 75% of hotel workers also going on strike; construction sites in Colas and la Sauri went on strike, as did 95% of the work force at the General Water company. There was a big rally at the University Hospital Center in Pointe-à-Pitre, and then hospital workers marched through the city to get other workers to come out on strike.
The organizations that began this movement presented a long list of demands. The most important are:
Almost all the unions were involved: the CGTG, UGTG, FO, CTU, CFDT and the teachers union SPEG. The political organizations include the Guadeloupean Communist Party, Combat Ouvrier (Workers Fight), UPLG, the Greens and a number of trade groups for farmers, fishermen, and tenants. The organizations connected to Carnival (which is like Mardi Gras) bring together a lot of young people, such as AKIYO, Voukoum, Kamodjaka and others, who also became involved in the strike.
That morning, demonstrators built several roadblocks, which stopped traffic at many points on the island. The police force intervened to remove the barricades, but the roadblocks were put back as soon as the police left; the cops admitted they could do nothing.
In a great number of workplaces, the workers voted for a strike in a general assembly. Everywhere, the movement received support and sympathy from the workers and the population. In the Jarry industrial zone, very early on January 20, there were a lot of pickets in front of the workplaces.
There are many reasons for discontent, but the most important are the increase in the price of gasoline; the staggering rise in the prices of everything; low wages; layoffs and unemployment. Hotel workers in particular expressed their great anger at the closing of two big hotels, the Anchorage and the Kalenda, which led to 160 layoffs.
The collective protest movement began December 16 and 17. More than 5,000 protesters marched in the streets of Pointe-à-Pitre on those days and then in Basse-Terre.
The government’s prefect, (an appointed national official) set a meeting with representatives for December 17 at city hall, and then refused to receive a delegation of 31 people, one representative of each organization. He insisted he would see only 15 people. His demand was refused, especially since the protesters could see that the gates of the prefecture were closed and guarded by the CRS (national tactical squad) in combat gear.
On January 19, this same guy also threatened the strikers, announcing that he gave "firm instructions to the forces of order," before saying that his "door was open." In other words, repression first, discussion after. His tone recalled the arrogant officials of colonial times.
Also on January 19, a meeting was held of over 400 people in front of the mutual insurance hall in Pointe-à-Pitre, which became the headquarters of the movement. On January 20, all militants had to be there at 9 a.m. On January 24, there will be a great street demonstration in Pointe-à-Pitre. On January 25, the usual carnival parade planned for this season will be transformed into a protest parade with scenes that show the protestors’ contempt for the government and the bosses.
Service stations are closed for two reasons: because their employees are on strike; also their managers decided to close stations in protest at the creation of new stations. These managers affected by the strike have also sought to profit from the situation. Since January 16, there have been long lines at the stations as drivers try to fill up as quickly as possible.
The news we can obtain makes it seem that a progressive paralysis is winning over the entire island. Union representatives and others have said that the movement won’t end until all the demands are satisfied. So it looks like the Guadeloupe strike will continue.
But, in the end, everything depends on the mobilization and determination of the workers, as well as the entire population, even beyond those in various organizations. For the moment, in any case, their determination remains strong!
On January 21, the unions called for a continuation of the strike. At the same time, in many workplaces, general assemblies were held that also decided to continue striking. And now, everyone is eager to prepare for the big demonstration on Sunday, January 24.
Jan 26, 2009
The Italian automaker FIAT splashed into headlines, taking a 35% stake in Chrysler. A new episode in the Chrysler soap opera! Another unexpected deal, cut behind the scenes, secretly in the works for months.
And what else is in secret? Up until now, Cerberus Capital Management, owner and manipulator of Chrysler, has hidden what it does, and keeps everyone off balance, guessing.
But the FIAT deal revealed some new things. From the start, although Cerberus denies it, everyone knew that they bought Chrysler from Daimler merely to “strip and flip” it, to cannibalize it before flipping the husk to the next high-rolling gambler.
The early signs of cannibalization were indirect. Bob Nardelli, infamous executive fired from Home Depot with a 210-million-dollar golden parachute, was installed as chairman, instead of promoting experienced auto executives. Five top-level executives left. Product development slowed. Engineering staff was laid off, decimated. Various deals with Chinese and Japanese carmakers were done–and undone–and re-done. Chrysler Financial–highly profitable before the credit crunch–was sliced off as a separate company.
Another Cerberus purchase–Mervyn’s–filed for bankruptcy and revealed a Cerberus strategy: at purchase, Cerberus split Mervyn’s into a real estate unit and a retail-sales unit. The retail-sales unit was loaded up with debt and with outrageous “rental” payments to the real estate unit. Eventually the retail unit was drained dry and closed–while the real estate unit still owns the properties and escaped without liability for the debts! Investors in the retail unit were fleeced.
As the FIAT deal progressed, more information leaked out about Cerberus’s Chrysler dealings. They used the same strategy as with Mervyn’s! Chrysler headquarters–the country’s “second largest office complex under one roof,” after the Pentagon–is now owned by Cerberus and leased out to Chrysler. Chrysler plants are mortgaged, that is, loaded with all the debt Cerberus ran up on the original deal.
It’s clear that only the economic meltdown, the credit crisis, stalled Cerberus’s original plans. It’s hard to flip a property when no one has enough credit to buy it! With the crisis, Chrysler has so little value at the moment, that FIAT (privately owned by the Agnelli family of Italy) could basically barter some small car engineering for 35% of the whole company–with an option to take 55%, after the government bailout.
But wait! Where’d the value of Chrysler go? The plants are still there, stuffed with high-tech equipment. Vehicles can still be built. Workers are ready and able to build them. What happened?
In typical vulture capitalist fashion, Cerberus structured the entire deal to enrich Cerberus’ own investors–by fleecing Chrysler, and its investors, and its workers.
Jan 26, 2009
The United Auto Workers’ Chrysler department allowed Chrysler to suspend its Jobs Bank program. On January 26, all workers were to be laid off, pushed onto the state unemployment rolls.
About a thousand workers were cut off without any advance notice. The UAW’s action sent a message. In advance of deadlines set by the old Bush administration–in advance of any negotiations with the new Obama administration–UAW leaders signaled that they would play their part in the corporate agenda. They would help smooth the way for further concessions.
Gettelfinger was ostentatiously lining the union up with the “bankruptcy” scam–a campaign carried out by government and the auto industry to scare workers into believing they will lose their jobs, unless they give up big concessions.
Workers didn’t run the auto companies into the ground. The companies did it themselves.
But now that the capitalists face a crisis of their own making, they want workers’ sacrifices to bail them out, beginning with the auto workers. The bosses pretend there is no other choice.
Of course there’s another choice. Make the rich pay for their own bailouts!
It’s obvious that auto workers who want to resist can’t count on people like Gettelfinger. Giving up Jobs Bank protection for unemployed workers, giving it up ahead of time and without a fight, was Gettelfinger’s way to surrender before the fight even began.
But the auto workers represent a real force that could make the bosses pay for their crisis. If the 250 workers at Republic Window in Chicago could force Republic to pay what it owed, what couldn’t the 165,000 auto workers do?
The demand for concessions from auto workers is aimed at the whole working class. If auto workers give up without a fight, it will be a real setback for everyone. It’s important that auto workers who disagree with concessions make their opposition felt, and important that other workers join them.
Jan 26, 2009
Chrysler, Ford and GM say they are nearly broke.
But they have plenty of money. They simply shift accounts.
Ford, for example, reported to the SEC that from 1996 through 2007 its net LOSS over those years was 4.9 billion dollars–in "automotive" operations.
Meanwhile their net PROFIT over those same years was 32.7 billion dollars–in "financial" operations.
In other words they book the losses in the manufacturing unit column–and book the profits in the financial unit column.
That also helps avoid profit-sharing payments.
Cerberus is private so it doesn’t file SEC reports. But even if we can’t get exact figures–we know that liars of a feather flock together!
Instead of the Federal Government demanding that WE have to dig into our pockets to pay for the auto companies’ bailout, why not ask the Ford family to dig into their pockets? This family dynasty has accumulated billions and billions of dollars over the years off of our labor.
The Ford family personally received a special dividend of 10 billion dollars in 2000, the largest ever by a U.S. company. Let them give it back. That 10 billion will more than cover the 9 billion that Mulally says the company might need for a rainy day.
All the big 3 CEOs say they are willing to accept an annual salary of one dollar.
Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca played the same game when Chrysler workers gave up billions of dollars in concessions, starting in 1980.
But by 1987, Iacocca had become the highest paid CEO in U.S. history, raking in something like a total of 43 million dollars from 1980 to 1987.