Showing posts with label Canadian Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian Labour. Show all posts

June 15, 2020

The Pandemic Road to Serfdom Joel Kotkin Essay 05.01.2020

The Pandemic Road to Serfdom


Essay
05.01.2020

Our Covid-era oligarchs are fitting us for feudalism.

Even before the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, America, like most higher-income countries, was already heading toward a neo-feudal future: massive inequality, ever-greater concentrations of power, and increasingly widespread embrace of a uniform (albeit secular) religion. The pandemic, all too reminiscent of the great plagues of the Middle Ages, seems destined to accelerate this process.
This can be seen by looking at something that many Americans, particularly conservatives, often long to ignore: class. In contrast to the post-World War II order, which engendered growing opportunity for the middle and working classes, the last few decades have seen the rapid concentration of wealth in virtually every major country in Europe and Asia.
The oligarchic class now owns as much as 50% of world’s assets. Just five companies—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—account for over 20% of the market capitalization of the entire S&P 500 index.
Today’s new oligarchs constitute a modern-day equivalent of the Medieval aristocracy. Like the barbarians who seized control of land during the demise of Rome, they seem well-positioned to benefit from the emerging social distance-driven recession. The dislocation caused by the pandemic has greatly expanded the financial assets of the country’s increasingly hegemonic giant banks. But the biggest long-term winners are the big tech firms that dominate digital pathways at a time when the analog world, already failing, now faces inexorable obliteration.
Today’s other ascendant class is what I call the clerisy, who today fulfill the role played by the clergy in the Middle Ages. Known as the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France, the clerisy today is largely secular but consists of the key influencers in the media, academia, the upper bureaucracy and the ever-expanding “non-profit” sector. This new middle class enjoys something of a symbiosis with the oligarchic elites who mainly finance non-governmental organizations and the universities, and tends to a share a similarly progressive world view.
The people losing out most in the pandemic are the remnants of what was once dubbed the Third Estate: the commoners, long the bastion of democracy and liberal ideas. Millions of owners of small businesses have been devastated by the lockdowns, their lifetime investments allowed to turn to dust because the clerisy has declared them “non-essential” and hopes to keep them in lockdown well into the summer.
Worse still, as the promise of becoming business owners and homeowners has faded—particularly for the young—many increasingly fall into the insecure “precariat” of gig and part-time workers. These modern-day serfs are suffering the most from the pandemic. Millions of low-wage workers in hospitality, retail, and restaurants have lost their jobs and possess only meager prospects of getting them back in the near- or even medium-term future. Many others, largely low-wage service workers in “essential” jobs, are still working, but at high risk to themselves, often without adequate health and other protections.
How the Pandemic Drives Oligarchic Power
The new regime of social distancing, likely to remain influential for years to come, works most directly for the interests of the technologized oligarchy. The long-term decline of travel, convention, and traditional entertainment may mean disaster for millions of workers and many businesses, but it represents an enormous opportunity for those who can deliver food, goods, diversions, and experiences over the relative safety of digital networks.
But as jobs are destroyed on Main Street, others, like those at well-positioned Amazon, are created by the hundreds of thousands. It is also a rosy new dawn for online collaboration applications like Zoom, Google Hangouts, Facebook Rooms, Microsoft Teams, and Slack, the fastest-growing business app on record. Also greatly enhanced will be those who provide the infrastructure for the conquering digital economy, including chipmakers like Intel and cloud-computing behemoths like (yet again) Amazon and Microsoft.
The pandemic seems likely to further consolidate the tech industry shift from its garage-based startup past, with firms like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon increasingly resembling Japan’s long-dominant keiretsu. The pandemic may have squashed many new companies that are now short on capital. In contrast, the oligarchic firms, which control upwards of 80% of such key markets as search, social media, cloud computing, and computer operating systems, now enjoy an even greater edge in garnering ever more of the nation’s technical talent.
Ultimately the pandemic will provide the new elite with opportunities to gain control of a whole set of coveted industries, from entertainment and media to finance and space travel. Perhaps most concerning will be their ability to control all aspects of information as the last vestiges of local and small-town journalism face Covid-driven “extinction level” events. What is now left of the “legacy” media—the Atlantic, Time, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times—has fallen increasingly under their control. Nine of the 13 richest people under age 40 are in the tech industry: the odds are favorable that the new elite will maintain their control over information for generations.
The Secular Priesthood
The barbarians who seized Roman lands took advantage of chaos to fuel their ascendancy in what became the Middle Ages. Pestilence-driven depopulation and weakened political institutions enabled them to establish their hegemony over shrinking economies. Yet to assure their power, the Medieval aristocracies needed more than just swords and armor: they needed a belief system that would allow them to control the lower classes effectively.
Today this role is played by a far-reaching “expert class” teeming with highly-credentialed functionaries. The power of the “expert” professions—education, consulting, law, policymaking, and health and medicine, to name a few—has waxed in recent decades. To a large extent, the gradual demise of the analog economy is hastened by medical experts—at least those largely favored by the media—who call for lockdowns and restrictions that could easily extend to summer and even, according to Ezekiel Emanuel, lead medical advisor to Joe Biden, as long as eighteen months.
Like their Medieval counterparts in the old First Estate, members of today’s clerisy see their intrusions motivated not by self-interest but rather the good of society. They constitute “the privileged stratum,” as the French leftist Christophe Guilluy argues in his recent book Twilight of the Elites, operating from an assumption of “moral superiority” that justifies their right to instruct others.
From the pandemic to the climate, many of the expert class’s marquee predictions have been exaggerated or even plain wrong. (In the 1970s, hysteria among educated elites was mostly directed toward dire predictions that our natural resources, including energy and food, were about to run out, leading to imminent mass starvation.) Like the Medieval clergy, the clerisy, especially in the dominant media and academia, rarely takes itself to task. Instead, it makes deference to “the science” into a form of quasi-religious zealotry. For some, the pandemic is being hailed as “test run” for the true green agenda of less material progress and, ultimately, “de-growth.”
The parallels with the Middle Ages are profound. The lockdowns and economic depression associated with the pandemic will help, as Psychology Today suggests, cure “the human beast,” a phraseology not too distinct from early Christian assessments of humanity’s capacity for sin. This “eco-medievalist” view sees the pandemic as the latest punishment meted out by an increasingly angry and wounded Mother Nature. Conservatives, some of whom predict the pandemic will undermine support for climate extremism, fail to understand the mass appeal of a media-powered movement largely couched in quasi-religious terms.
The Coming Crisis of the Third Estate
In contrast, the pandemic has proven an utter disaster for much of the Third Estate. The most evident damage can be seen at the malls, or on Main Street, where millions of small firms have been forced to close and, at least in some locations, may be forced to stay locked down for many more months—even as some states and, in some parts of Europe, whole countries, are opening up.
In the aftermath of the lockdowns, small independent firms will be harder-pressed to compete against larger competitors with better access to capital and better positioning to wait out the pandemic. In the coming months, we might see many of our favorite local gyms and bars, or taco stands and family-owned Chinese restaurants, replaced by either online options or larger chains.
Well-financed large restaurant chains moved to the front of the line to secure their place atop the food chain, but the National Restaurant Association estimates that more than 8 million restaurant employees have been laid off or furloughed since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak in March. This represents more than two-thirds of the 12 million employees that were working at the nation’s eating and drinking establishments in February.
Sadly these workers, and local business, can’t expect much help from Washington’s current stimulus plans. Even the Wall Street Journal admits the stimulus plan is “putting Wall Street ahead” of competing Main Street businesses. Republicans may talk a good game about smaller firms, arguably Trump’s strongest base, but at the end of the day they tend to take direction from large, globalized corporations and well-connected financial interests. Democrats, for their part, have little interest in smaller business as these tend to be owned by conservatives and are not amenable to unionization.
The generation of workers clipped by the Great Recession is now suffering the largest share of the job losses. Even those still working are stuck in the precariat, with little ability to control working conditions, terms of employment, or guarantees for health coverage. Such workers may try to use their leverage as “essential” to boost wages and improve conditions. We already see labor strife at Amazon, Instacart, Perdue, and McDonald’s. If nothing else, as Michael Lind suggests, the pandemic could “alter the balance of power among workers and employers.”
With the yeomanry thundering mostly from the Right, the protests of “essential” blue-collar workers could help boost the socialist cause. Roughly half of American households have no emergency savings and face an uncertain future as jobs disappear. A new class of ex-workers now finds the dole a more amenable or viable option than hard and dangerous work for relatively low pay. Bernie Sanders may have lost the nomination, but the message he ran on is amplified at a time when soup kitchens, as during the Depression, are now serving New York artists, writers, and musicians. The pandemic will likely increase the strong socialist tendency among both millennials and the successor Z generation.
More dangerous still may be the potential return to anarchy, particularly in the barrios and ghettos of the nation. In New York, the working-class transit-dependent communities of the outer boroughs can’t flee to second homes, work at home, walk to work, or take cabs like the Manhattan rich. As occurred in the wake of the great aerospace depression in Southern California in the early ’90s, diminished prospects can help light the flames of violent anarchy from the home on up. Family violence is already increasing in many countries.
Add to this toxic stew the fact that some jurisdictions, citing infection fears, have released dangerous criminals onto the streets. Crime has predictably spiked from New York to San Francisco. Even before the pandemic set in, the big American cities—unable to curb large homeless populations spreading filth and Medieval disease—took on the hazardous cast of ancient Rome, Victorian London, New York’s Five Points, or the favelas and ghettos of Third-World cities like Sao Paulo, Mexico City, or Manila. The rising number of people unable to pay rent—now one in three—could provide fodder for a new round of urban disorder.
Ultimately such disorder threatens the power of both the oligarchs and the clerisy. Their likely response may be embracing what I call “oligarchal socialism,” where the very notion of work disappears in favor of a regime of cash allotments. This notion of providing what Marx called “proletarian alms,” widely supported in Silicon Valley, could prove a lasting legacy of the pandemic. This is how Rome, as slaves replaced the middle orders, kept its citizenry in line, and how the Medieval order in times of economic stress relied on the charitable efforts of the Church.
The virus that now dominates our daily lives may soon begin to slowly fade, but it will have a deep, protracted impact on our society and class structure. Covid-19 will likely leave us with conditions that more resemble feudalism than anyone could have imagined just a few years ago.
is the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Urban Reform Institute. His forthcoming book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism, is out from Encounter later this spring.

May 26, 2009

CANADIAN LABOUR: LATENT THREAT OR SPENT FORCE? By: Sam Hammond, People's Voice


(The following article is from the May 16-30, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Sam Hammond


Our labour movement is a very real and important example of social organization, reflecting the existence of opposing classes in the capitalist stage. It is both historically a result of the creation of a working class which the early capitalists needed to exploit, and a quantitative component of the ensuing class struggle.

It is necessary to understand the historical need that created the labour movement, because that original historic purpose is essential to measure whether the movement is a quantity of decline, or still a quantity of growth in the competition and struggle between the opposing classes. In the escalating attack on Canadian labour launched by imperialism, the corporate neo-liberal agenda is a weapon wielded by compliant governments and chameleon institutions. Is our labour movement capable of mounting defensive struggle and counter-attacking, or are we a spent force?

Although the attack is universal it spins out in different ways in the imperialist states, of which Canada is one. We have a highly developed working class that has created a mature and able trade union movement. However, the period from the beginning of the Cold War to the early 1970s, marked by McCarthyism, by the attack on the left and left-led unions, can be looked at in retrospect as a period of attempted pacification of the working class. The purpose of the state (and its allies within our class) was to neutralize the quantity of resistance, of class struggle, and replace it with a quantity of compliance and collaboration.

Although not completely successful, this offensive destroyed the Canadian Seamen's Union, and wore down the membership of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers who had given so much to Canadian labour. It was used to justify the expulsion of other left unions from the central labour bodies, and to separate the peace movement and the social justice movements from all but the minority of left unions. Leadership was gradually shifted into the hands of those who rose in position because of anti-communism, not through experience or ability to represent workers needs.

The recognition of this injustice against the working class and its most militant representatives must be part of the resurgence of labour and its rededication to the needs of all working people. To the credit of the Canadian working class, the victory of capital was never complete. While business trade unionism became dominant at the top, in contradiction to rank-and-file needs, a small but very tenacious left survived and continued to exert considerable influence. The emergence of CUPE, the CAW and CEP were all expressions of continuing creativity and militancy, and the ability of Canadian workers to struggle not only for unionism but for Canadian unions.

In Quebec the working class also maintained its historic roots, introducing its national character and needs into the struggle, with the CNTU growing as a force and the QFL establishing itself within the CLC as a national labour body.

The present onslaught, whose central thrust is brutally directed against the CAW, was preceded by more than twenty years of skirmishes and probes. The economic slump of the mid-1980s was a softener. The 1995 election of the Harris Tories preceded an attack on the dispossessed, twinned with an attack on Ontario public sector workers. This Tory agenda was challenged by massive worker support for the Ontario Days of Action, which ended in a split between the CAW and the Ontario Federation of Labour over whether to continue the fight. The right won and the fightback was abandoned. The CAW unfortunately left the OFL in search of go-it-alone solutions that led it to the Liberal party and weakened Ontario labour considerably.

Ontario's teachers launched an historic political strike in defence of quality education and funding but were failed by weak leadership. In British Columbia, emboldened by weak labour leadership, the Campbell government shamelessly drove back wages and working conditions for health workers, despite their massive public support and the stirrings of a general strike. The same Campbell government, using the Supreme Court as a weapon, was later repulsed and shamed by the courageous stand of the BC Teachers, who put it on the line in a major struggle for teaching and learning conditions.

In Quebec a few years ago, preparations for massive resistance to the Charest government, including a national work stoppage, were neutralized behind the scenes by the machinations of some major union leaders. But things have changed. On May 11, all the public and para-public sector unions in Quebec announced the creation of their biggest common front in history, representing half a million workers. Despite the economic crisis, unions are demanding a major wage increase of 11.25% over 33 months. Calculated on the average public sector wage level, this means negotiating an increase of over 15% for lower paid employees. The Charest government has reacted by saying that unions must be "reasonable."

These skirmishes, by no means passive, were not the only ones fought in the recent past. They clearly demonstrate the two main ideological trends in Canadian labour, and their corresponding strengths and weaknesses.

The rejection of independent labour political action by the right forces in the OFL allowed then CAW President Buzz Hargrove an excuse to implement concessionary thinking, including a semi-alliance with the Liberal party hidden behind programs of strategic voting that were embraced by some Ontario Teachers, most Building Trades unions, and a few others. The OFL went into a deep slumber and became an absentee labour movement. The CLC has also been in "Rip Van Winkle" mode, emerging periodically to check its own shadow. There have been campaigns on paper but not on pavement, with the exceptions of a CAW attempt to put substance into the CLC "Manufacturing Matters Campaign," and the CLC's EI and "Get Real Campaign" that so far has received only token support from the rest of labour.

Against this backdrop, the CAW leadership made some rather dramatic turns into concessionary bargaining and a failed experiment with a company compliant, collaborationist "Framework of Fairness" agreement with Magna Corporation. The die was cast. Buzz Hargrove no longer looked to the militants in the rank and file, but to the elements of compliance and careerism who could be easily recruited to his agenda. Three years of concessions (small at first but developing into major) and early contract openings with the "Big Three" auto plants in Ontario preceded the vicious attack by the Harper Tories government, the auto companies, and in the background, the Bush presidency. Now labour's "friend in the White House" is demanding non-union parity from the United Auto Workers, with the "Northern Stooge" putting the same to the CAW.

CAW president Ken Lewenza walked into this cesspool, and has been desperately trying to salvage his members and union from corporate double-cross, government attack and broken promises. A couple of explosions of militant action, reminiscent of the older CAW, have been handled too easily by court injunctions.

Sold as a way to save jobs in the CAW, concessionary bargaining only whetted the corporate thirst. The present onslaught was bolder because of this sign of weakness. The jobs have disappeared and the union is left without a "Plan B". The demands of the capitalist state and the corporations were not retarded or lessened by a resistance campaign, or even a condemnation of the attack. In fact, Ken Lewenza has mistakenly complimented the two levels of government for their injection of public cash into the corporations, approved the takeover of Chrysler by yet another foreign corporation (Fiat of Italy), and failed to raise the possibility of nationalizing what we have already paid for to launch a real Canadian vehicle, transportation and farm implement industry. He is no doubt desperately searching for a way to save his members and his union. This deserves respect, but it is not the way.

The labour movement is in rather deep hibernation, but it is not a spent force. The most mauled, the CAW, is still intact. It has the members and the traditions to regroup, to sustain itself and counter-attack. This cannot be done by one union alone, and it is a compliment to Ken Lewenza and his union that they are going back into the Ontario Federation of Labour even if the horse is out of the barn.

Hopefully this will spur some militant fightback in Ontario, where the OFL and all workers need the CAW presence in the central labour body as an alternative voice to wake up the Rip Van Winkles. Ken Lewenza is not the architect of concessionary bargaining, and hopefully he will learn that there are other roads.

The victims of the global crisis include one in ten of Canadian children who eat out of food banks, the 75% of workers who cannot access Unemployment Insurance, auto workers deprived of wages and benefits, the unemployed from 67 idle wood processing mills in British Columbia, the Quebec workers ejected from Bombardier, relocated Maritimers all over Canada, teachers wrestling with education funding cuts, the Hamilton Steelworkers, the locked-out Hamilton Steel Car Workers, striking BC Paramedics. All these citizens and their children are wondering how to pay rent and mortgages, how to eat, how to heat, how to hold families together. For them there is no sleep.

The Canadian Labour Congress, the Quebec Federation of Labour and the CNTU cannot sit in their respective solitudes while the Canadian working class is dissected piecemeal. There must be early and urgent meetings to plan a counter-offensive that includes the social justice movements. Coalition building led by organized labour is the order of the day. No group or strata is strong enough to repulse the tactics of the offensive by capital and the state. With the organization and experience of labour in the pivotal position, coalitions will rush together to turn the tide and win public support. This is the lesson of France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Guadeloupe, and other recent struggles.

As long as there is exploitation and as long as working people have needs, the labour movement will be the most important part of the fightback, the latent threat of massive resistance, the training ground of tactical struggle, and the potential army of a political movement of the left that will destroy this treadmill of gain and loss and give our hard won gains constitutional permanence.

Canadian Labour is not a spent force. It remains to be seen if the present leadership of labour is a spent force.

May 16, 2009

CANADIAN LABOUR, By Sam Hammond

By Sam Hammond

(The following article is from the May 16-30, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper.)
________________________________________________________
OUR LABOUR MOVEMENT is a very real and important example of social organization, reflecting the existence of opposing classes in the capitalist stage. It is both historically a result of the creation of a working class which the early capitalists needed to exploit, and a quantitative component of the ensuing class struggle.

It is necessary to understand the historical need that created the labour movement, because that original historic purpose is essential to measure whether the movement is a quantity of decline, or still a quantity of growth in the competition and struggle between the opposing classes. In the escalating attack on Canadian labour launched by imperialism, the corporate neo-liberal agenda is a weapon wielded by compliant governments and chameleon institutions. Is our labour movement capable of mounting defensive struggle and counter-attacking, or are we a spent force?

Although the attack is universal it spins out in different ways in the imperialist states, of which Canada is one. We have a highly developed working class that has created a mature and able trade union movement. However, the period from the beginning of the Cold War to the early 1970s, marked by McCarthyism, by the attack on the left and left-led unions, can be looked at in retrospect as a period of attempted pacification of the working class. The purpose of the state (and its allies within our class) was to neutralize the quantity of resistance, of class struggle, and replace it with a quantity of compliance and collaboration.

Although not completely successful, this offensive destroyed the Canadian Seamen's Union, and wore down the membership of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers who had given so much to Canadian labour. It was used to justify the expulsion of other left unions from the central labour bodies, and to separate the peace movement and the social justice movements from all but the minority of left unions. Leadership was gradually shifted into the hands of those who rose in position because of anti-communism, not through experience or ability to represent workers needs.

The recognition of this injustice against the working class and its most militant representatives must be part of the resurgence of labour and its rededication to the needs of all working people. To the credit of the Canadian working class, the victory of capital was never complete. While business trade unionism became dominant at the top, in contradiction to rank-and-file needs, a small but very tenacious left survived and continued to exert considerable influence. The emergence of CUPE, the CAW and CEP were all expressions of continuing creativity and militancy, and the ability of Canadian workers to struggle not only for unionism but for Canadian unions.

In Quebec the working class also maintained its historic roots, introducing its national character and needs into the struggle, with the CNTU growing as a force and the QFL establishing itself within the CLC as a national labour body.

The present onslaught, whose central thrust is brutally directed against the CAW, was preceded by more than twenty years of skirmishes and probes. The economic slump of the mid-1980s was a softener. The 1995 election of the Harris Tories preceded an attack on the dispossessed, twinned with an attack on Ontario public sector workers. This Tory agenda was challenged by massive worker support for the Ontario Days of Action, which ended in a split between the CAW and the Ontario Federation of Labour over whether to continue the fight. The right won and the fightback was abandoned. The CAW unfortunately left the OFL in search of go-it-alone solutions that led it to the Liberal party and weakened Ontario labour considerably.

Ontario's teachers launched an historic political strike in defence of quality education and funding but were failed by weak leadership. In British Columbia, emboldened by weak labour leadership, the Campbell government shamelessly drove back wages and working conditions for health workers, despite their massive public support and the stirrings of a general strike. The same Campbell government, using the Supreme Court as a weapon, was later repulsed and shamed by the courageous stand of the BC Teachers, who put it on the line in a major struggle for teaching and learning conditions.

In Quebec a few years ago, preparations for massive resistance to the Charest government, including a national work stoppage, were neutralized behind the scenes by the machinations of some major union leaders. But things have changed. On May 11, all the public and para-public sector unions in Quebec announced the creation of their biggest common front in history, representing half a million workers. Despite the economic crisis, unions are demanding a major wage increase of 11.25% over 33 months. Calculated on the average public sector wage level, this means negotiating an increase of over 15% for lower paid employees. The Charest government has reacted by saying that unions must be "reasonable."

These skirmishes, by no means passive, were not the only ones fought in the recent past. They clearly demonstrate the two main ideological trends in Canadian labour, and their corresponding strengths and weaknesses.

The rejection of independent labour political action by the right forces in the OFL allowed then CAW President Buzz Hargrove an excuse to implement concessionary thinking, including a semi-alliance with the Liberal party hidden behind programs of strategic voting that were embraced by some Ontario Teachers, most Building Trades unions, and a few others. The OFL went into a deep slumber and became an absentee labour movement. The CLC has also been in "Rip Van Winkle" mode, emerging periodically to check its own shadow. There have been campaigns on paper but not on pavement, with the exceptions of a CAW attempt to put substance into the CLC "Manufacturing Matters Campaign," and the CLC's EI and "Get Real Campaign" that so far has received only token support from the rest of labour.

Against this backdrop, the CAW leadership made some rather dramatic turns into concessionary bargaining and a failed experiment with a company compliant, collaborationist "Framework of Fairness" agreement with Magna Corporation. The die was cast. Buzz Hargrove no longer looked to the militants in the rank and file, but to the elements of compliance and careerism who could be easily recruited to his agenda. Three years of concessions (small at first but developing into major) and early contract openings with the "Big Three" auto plants in Ontario preceded the vicious attack by the Harper Tories government, the auto companies, and in the background, the Bush presidency. Now labour's "friend in the White House" is demanding non-union parity from the United Auto Workers, with the "Northern Stooge" putting the same to the CAW.

CAW president Ken Lewenza walked into this cesspool, and has been desperately trying to salvage his members and union from corporate double-cross, government attack and broken promises. A couple of explosions of militant action, reminiscent of the older CAW, have been handled too easily by court injunctions.

Sold as a way to save jobs in the CAW, concessionary bargaining only whetted the corporate thirst. The present onslaught was bolder because of this sign of weakness. The jobs have disappeared and the union is left without a "Plan B". The demands of the capitalist state and the corporations were not retarded or lessened by a resistance campaign, or even a condemnation of the attack. In fact, Ken Lewenza has mistakenly complimented the two levels of government for their injection of public cash into the corporations, approved the takeover of Chrysler by yet another foreign corporation (Fiat of Italy), and failed to raise the possibility of nationalizing what we have already paid for to launch a real Canadian vehicle, transportation and farm implement industry. He is no doubt desperately searching for a way to save his members and his union. This deserves respect, but it is not the way.

The labour movement is in rather deep hibernation, but it is not a spent force. The most mauled, the CAW, is still intact. It has the members and the traditions to regroup, to sustain itself and counter-attack. This cannot be done by one union alone, and it is a compliment to Ken Lewenza and his union that they are going back into the Ontario Federation of Labour even if the horse is out of the barn.

Hopefully this will spur some militant fightback in Ontario, where the OFL and all workers need the CAW presence in the central labour body as an alternative voice to wake up the Rip Van Winkles. Ken Lewenza is not the architect of concessionary bargaining, and hopefully he will learn that there are other roads.

The victims of the global crisis include one in ten of Canadian children who eat out of food banks, the 75% of workers who cannot access Unemployment Insurance, auto workers deprived of wages and benefits, the unemployed from 67 idle wood processing mills in British Columbia, the Quebec workers ejected from Bombardier, relocated Maritimers all over Canada, teachers wrestling with education funding cuts, the Hamilton Steelworkers, the locked-out Hamilton Steel Car Workers, striking BC Paramedics. All these citizens and their children are wondering how to pay rent and mortgages, how to eat, how to heat, how to hold families together. For them there is no sleep.

The Canadian Labour Congress, the Quebec Federation of Labour and the CNTU cannot sit in their respective solitudes while the Canadian working class is dissected piecemeal. There must be early and urgent meetings to plan a counter-offensive that includes the social justice movements. Coalition building led by organized labour is the order of the day. No group or strata is strong enough to repulse the tactics of the offensive by capital and the state. With the organization and experience of labour in the pivotal position, coalitions will rush together to turn the tide and win public support. This is the lesson of France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Guadeloupe, and other recent struggles.

As long as there is exploitation and as long as working people have needs, the labour movement will be the most important part of the fightback, the latent threat of massive resistance, the training ground of tactical struggle, and the potential army of a political movement of the left that will destroy this treadmill of gain and loss and give our hard won gains constitutional permanence.

Canadian Labour is not a spent force. It remains to be seen if the present leadership of labour is a spent force.

_____________________________________________________________________

Featured Story

Dejemos que la izquierda de Estados Unidos tenga cuidado! por Andrew Taylor 23.06.2021

La Administración Biden ha habilitado una nueva "Iniciativa contra el terrorismo doméstico" para defender "The Homeland"...