AN INTERVIEW ON STRUGGLES OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS IN ARGENTINA IN DECEMBER 2001

A MONTH ago, Argentina was a symbol of the disaster of the free market.

Years of recession had driven unemployment to nearly 20 percent and pushed

one-third of the population into poverty.

And all President Fernando de la Ra and his hated economics chief Domingo

Cavallo could offer was more austerity--slashed wages, layoffs, spending

cuts, privatization.

But Argentina today is the symbol of something else--the hope of a better

future. In mid-December, ordinary Argentinians said "no" to the misery of a

system run by bankers and bosses. By December 20, every city and town in

Argentina, including Buenos Aires, was paralyzed by mass demonstrations.

Cavallo was the first to go. Then de la Ra. And one week after that, a new

wave of demonstrations brought down another government.

JAMES PETRAS has worked for the past two years with the unemployed movement

in Argentina. Petras is the author of numerous books on Latin America--the

most recent, co-authored with Henry Veltmeyer, is Globalization Unmasked:

Imperialism in the 21st Century. He talked to ALAN MAASS about the uprising.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHERE DID the spark for the December uprising come from?

THE DRIVING force for these massive mobilizations has its roots in the

large-scale, sustained activities of the unemployment movement.

The unemployed workers movement has been gaining strength for the last five

years. But in the last year, its spread throughout the country and has

played a major role in securing subsistence programs from the government and

public works for at least a sector of the unemployed.

Its tactics are to paralyze the circulation of commodities and

transportation. So the piqueteros, as theyre called, meaning "the

picketers," block off major highways in order to make their demands.

The ranks of the unemployed movement include a preponderance of women,

especially woman heads of households, which has grown with the unemployment.

In some areas, unemployment is probably 50 to 60 percent. So many of the

piqueteros are factory workers with trade union experience. Many are young

people whove never had a job.

They organize and block the highways. Traffic piles up, trucks cant move,

factories cant get supplies. These are the functional equivalents of

factory workers downing their tools. In this case, instead of directly

stopping production, they stop the inputs and outputs from production.

Then the government can send the police down, in which case theres a whole

confrontation. People have been killed, five or six recently in the north of

Argentina.

But the fear for the government is that if the confrontations continue, the

crowds come in from the huge slums, and it could turn into a mini-civil war.

So the government usually--after threats and mobilizations of

police--negotiates an agreement.

These agreements are discussed by the participants themselves. They dont

delegate any leaders to go downtown. They make the government come to the

highways, and the people there discuss what they should demand and what they

should accept.

Their experience with delegated leadership is that they go downtown, they

sit in a big room with the government or with the trade union bureaucracy,

and they usually get bought out. The leaders get some payoffs, even the

militant leaders. Or they get drawn into some tripartite agreement, and the

rank and file is sold out. So their activity is about direct representation,

direct negotiation, direct action.

These demonstrations have been enormously successful within the limited

areas in which they operate. But recently, as early as September of last

year, there were two national meetings trying to coordinate the committees

from all the different cities and the regions and suburbs of Buenos Aries,

and they created a kind of coordinating committee.

But what they taught the population as a whole was that you cant rely on

the politicians. You have to take action for yourself and from below.

HOW DID the piqueteros struggles set the stage for the December

demonstrations?

I THINK that spirit began to manifest itself, even in downtown Buenos Aires,

shortly before this latest uprising. There were several cases where

grievances emerged, and shopkeepers and others decided to close off downtown

streets.

There was a huge debate within the movement, because the so-called

progressive trade union leadership thought it could win over the middle

class by blocking main streets but allowing alternative streets to function.

This was opposed by the more militant unemployed movements, which said you

either close the streets, or you dont.

So this spirit captured the imagination of not only employed workers and, of

course, the young people, but also the impoverished lower middle class, and

even sectors of more affluent petty bourgeois, including shopkeepers, small

businessmen and others who had accounts in the banks.

When the government finally confiscated the savings--billions of dollars in

savings--of the middle class, these layers also became involved in street

demonstrations. This is an impoverished, radicalized middle class.

Its a mistake to think of it as simply the middle class. These are people

whove lost all their savings. They dont have money to pay their grocery

bills, or their rents, or go on vacations, or what have you. So under the

example of the unemployed workers, you had a coming together of various

strands of the population.

You had the great mass of unemployed who were involved in some kind of

informal economy. You had employed workers who hadnt been paid because the

accounts of their employers are frozen. And you have a great mass of public

employees and shopkeepers and others forming a very broad front against the

bankers.

The bankers have been able to get their money out. By using the purchase of

Argentine stocks on the New York Stock Exchange, they have no problem

getting their money out of the country.

So this is very much a class phenomenon, in which the unemployed workers

formed one pole, drawing the workers, the petty bourgeois and sectors of the

middle class to the politics of extra-parliamentary struggle--to the

politics of rejecting the major bourgeois parties.

This, I think, is the dynamic. Now whether this middle class will be a

strategic ally--whether theyll get a deal which allows them to take their

money out of the banks--is an open question.

But I think the most important factor in this is that mass action, more than

all the ritual strikes of the trade union bureaucracy, led to the ouster of

the main leaders of neoliberalism and the main spokesmen for U.S. banks and

U.S. imperialism in the government at that time.

Each time, theyve been replaced by new faces, all coming within the

framework of neoliberalism. Theres no way that the debt can be paid without

precipitating a mass uprising--in which case, I think, the bourgeois

parliamentary system will go down, and perhaps youll have a civil war, with

the military coming into the picture.

Nothing in the bourgeois press captures the degree of tension and

polarization that exists in Argentina today. On the spot, activists and

revolutionaries describe it as a pre-revolutionary situation. And certainly

the degree of hostility to all the bourgeois parties and the degree of

militancy of great masses of people would describe a pre-revolutionary

situation.

There isnt at this time an organized revolutionary party with roots and

support. There are thousands of local activists and militants who engage in

these activities, and there is a broad radicalization of consciousness among

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Argentinians today--unprecedented

in recent times in Latin America.

But the little left parties--all the Trotskyist and Marxist parties--spent

most of their resources recently in electing officials to an impotent

parliament. And nowhere have these parties--or the center-left, of

course--exercised any kind of leadership. Theyve been out of sight. They

issue manifestos; they sell their newspapers. In none of these growing mass

confrontations--that are reaching proportions of hundreds of thousands in

different cities--has there been any organized vanguard.

There are militants from the unemployed movement, who have some kind of

street-fighting experience and preparation. Programmatically, theyre clear

as far as their immediate demands--which is massive employment projects,

living wages, unemployment benefits, and of course, no payment of the debt.

And some sectors are calling for the renationalization of the strategic

sectors of the economy.

WHAT WILL Duhaldes new government be like?

THE CURRENT government of President Duhalde is clearly a provocation. Hes a

man of the right, and hes organized, in the past, a political apparatus of

thugs.

Despite what the press says, he is capable of putting right-wing street

fighters out--fascist-like groups that can draw on lumpens and some

disoriented unemployed to challenge for hegemony in the streets and take

pressure off the police. There already has been one major confrontation

with, of course, police taking the side of Duhaldes Peronist thugs.

But this is, I think, a dress rehearsal. There is no honeymoon period for

Duhalde. Right as were speaking today, there are massive demonstrations in

Argentina, and there are preparations for a big show of force when he

announces his economic program late this afternoon.

More than any recent events, were dealing with a country that has a long

tradition of trade union, collective action. General strikes are more common

in Argentina than in any country in the world.

This is the country that has the biggest concentration of unemployed

industrial workers in the world today. And thirdly, this is the country with

the largest number of unemployed workers organized and engaged in direct

action.

What is, I think, necessary or missing in this context is a recognized

political leadership that can carry this dynamic process forward to the

creation of a workers government. I think the ensuing struggle is going to

raise that question very acutely.

We should keep in mind that the leadership in Washington will not rest until

it buries that movement. And I think what you might see is the maintenance

of the civilian political facade and the return of the military as a

determining factor in politics.

And thats like throwing wood on the fire. As we saw in the earlier

dictatorship of 1976, it took 30,000 dead and disappeared to bury that

movement. This time, there are many, many more activists and militants than

there were at the height of the mobilizations in the 1960s and 1970s.

YOU TALKED about the conservatism of labor leaders and the unions "ritual"

general strikes. But havent the unions played a role in the resistance?

YOU CANT just speak of a general strike in Argentina. There are general

strikes, and there are general strikes. And everybody knows that in

Argentina. You can talk to a cab driver, who, when you ask, "What do you

think of this general strike?" will tell you that the bureaucrats are using

it to blow off steam.

Theyre one-day affairs with no active mobilizations or factory occupations.

The employers know it, and the government knows it--that if they sit on

their hands for one day, everything goes back to normal.

So they have little consequences. Theres little mobilization and little in

the way of activating the class and creating class consciousness. Theyre

decided from above, and theyre shut off from above.

There are three trade union confederations in Argentina. The official trade

union is the CGT, which has allied itself with every government since the

dictatorship--and even had arrangements with the dictatorship.

Theres the CGT-Moyano--the dissident CGT led by Hugo Moyano, which has been

critical of the official CGT for being so closely tied to the government.

But in turn, this federation is run by another set of bureaucrats who

utilize their opposition to the status quo to pressure the government to

make concessions to their followers while maintaining a distance from any

structural challenges.

The third major union is the progressive CTA, which emerged as a rejection

of the CGT and has many of the public-sector workers--workers who havent

had any relief with the shutting down and cutting off of services and the

firings of hundreds of thousands.

The Moyano trade union bureaucracy has been more eager to engage in general

strikes and to mobilize around specific issues. They use a great deal of

populist rhetoric, but later negotiate on more narrow sectoral issues,

constantly negotiating behind the backs of the workers.

Thats why theyre distrusted by many sectors of the working class as being

essentially an opportunistic opposition that is capable of putting people in

the streets, but is also quite capable of bringing them out of the streets.

The CTA has been the most active and radical of the trade unions, led by the

ATE, the public employees union. They have been involved with the piqueteros

and the unemployed.

They have raised very important structural issues. However, they have not at

any point called into question the capitalist system. Moreover, they have a

tendency to engage in militant actions and then step back and negotiate.

They have been conscious of their position as state employees--and therefore

very much engaged in negotiating with the state and paying lip service to

the rest of the working class.

They say that we ought to unify the unemployed and the public employees. But

the experience of the unemployed workers with the national leadership of the

CTA--and, particularly, the ATE--has been that they become auxiliaries. And

when the real negotiations take place, its over cutbacks in employment in

the public sector. Thats why the unemployed decided to go and organize for

themselves.

Now, there are powerful sectors of the public employees unions, plus sectors

of the teachers union, that have engaged in mass struggle and

confrontations--and have suffered some injuries and deaths even in these

great mobilizations.

I think one has to distinguish between the national leadership--particularly

of the CTA and to a lesser degree the Moyano group--and the rank and file.

This is especially true in the provinces, where you will find very radical,

very militant trade unionists, local leaders even, as well as the rank and

file.

For example, in Crdoba, in Salta, and in Neuqun, where the petroleum

industry is located, you have a great number of trade union activists, some

of whom have been influenced by the piqueteros, who have joined in

struggles.

WHAT DO these links between the unemployed movements and rank-and-file union

members look like?

I CAN give you an example. Hospital workers in Neuqun were protesting for

weeks, trying to get rid of an abusive director. Finally, the director

called the police in to stop the strikers from blocking the entrance to the

hospital.

Word got back to the unemployed. They jumped into their cars and

buses--whatever transport was available--and went up there 300 strong. In

less than an hour, the director was out, and the hospital workers elected a

new director.

That was an example of the kind of solidarity between the health workers and

the piqueteros that occurs frequently in the interior of the country. I

think this is a very promising development. But it has to be seen in

context.

The pronouncements coming from the general leaderships are not

representative of what they do--and certainly dont correspond to the kinds

of alliances which are building up at the grassroots level. Thats the

significant thing.

Im not saying that there arent individual leaders in some particular

sector of industry whove displayed militancy. But the militancy today has

to be understood in a very concrete sense. Where were the leaders of the ATE

and the CTA during the December 20 protests?

The militants tell me that they were under the bed. They were notable by

their absence in those great days that brought down the de la Ra

government. They dont show face, as they say in Argentina. And that is very

important, because action tells you a lot more than the speeches and

programs.

WHERE DO industrial workers fit into this picture of the labor movement?

THE BULK of industrial workers are unemployed today. They used to be 40

percent of the labor force. Theyre under 20 percent today.

So we have to think of the unemployed not as some kind of poor, urban street

vendors. Were talking about Argentina. Were talking about guys that worked

in auto plants, who were steelworkers, who were metallurgy and mechanical

workers. When I spoke last May at a meeting in Argentina, I met a great many

workers who had backgrounds in the trade unions.

And whats even more interesting are the wives of former industrial workers.

One of the things Ive noted is the militancy and high levels of

participation of wives of industrial workers--wives whove taken on even

more family responsibilities because their husbandshave become disoriented,

in part because of long-term unemployment.

The women are the ones to call them out on the picket line--to go down and

be active in order to get a job. Because if youre not on the road blockage,

youre not there to get a job when the assembly meets.

To understand the union movement, think that the U.S. [AFL-CIO President

John] Sweeney and the mainstream of the AFL-CIO would be in the CGT. The

left-of-center of the AFL-CIO would probably be with Moyano, the dissident.

Very few trade unionists would be with the CTA. And of course, the militant

section of the CTA would be totally foreign to American trade unionism--or

even most of European trade unionism today.

We have to put this in perspective. The mass action and mass confrontations

beginning on the 20th did more to change the political agenda and the

physiognomy of the government than all the general strikes and symbolic

protests of the trade unions in the last five or 10 years. The general

strikes are important when they have a social content--when the workers

occupy the factories and come out and face the government.

Thats what I think these movements of the unemployed have. These are

desperate people today. These are not employed workers fighting against a

particular cutback. Theyve lost all their savings. Theyve been out of work

for a long time. Many of them havent seen meat for months. This is a whole

desperate mass of people that cuts across class lines--but in which class

demands are articulated.

WHAT ARE the prospects for the development of an organization or party that

can take up the big political questions ahead?

THE ORGANIZING principle of the struggle has been hunger. Thats what

started the sacking of supermarkets in December, and the organization of

these road blockages before that. You had what we might call survival

demands for jobs--even low-paying public works jobs at $200 a month--and for

food.

Out of that struggle and organization, some of the more advanced workers in

the movement--with trade union experience and some political

experience--began to raise other issues, structural issues like repudiating

the debt, large-scale public investments and the renationalization of

strategic industries.

There are Marxists and socialists who are involved in some of these

organizations. But they are there as militants within these movements. They

are not, certainly, the dominant force. And they certainly dont have the

following in these movements to give leadership and direction--at least at

this time.

I think what you have is three levels. One is the grass roots, which is

suffering horrendous deprivation. Heres a country that is one of the

leading meat and grain producers in the world, and the workers are hungry.

They dont have beef, they dont have pasta, they cant feed their kids--and

they watch the trains taking tens of thousands of tons of meat to Buenos

Aires to ship to Europe.

So this is a provocation. Heres one of the most fertile areas in the world

with large-scale unemployment and with hunger--unprecedented in the history

of Argentina.

Thats one level. The second level is the emerging leadership, which has a

conception of structural changes that we might call anti-capitalist and

populist. And then we have a third level, in which the issues of socialism

and of a revolution come into play.

While the government continues to avoid the measures to ameliorate the

problems, increasingly the power within these mobilizations is moving toward

the left. A month ago, the issue of foreign debt repudiation was a left-wing

issue. Today, its the mainstream. The issue of massive public works was a

left-wing issue. Today, its moved over into the mainstream.

The renationalization of basic strategic industries had a very small group

of supporters. Today, its gaining tens of thousands of adherents.

Intervention in the banks was an issue for the minority. Today, its become

a major issue.

So the whole political debate has moved to the left, as the left begins to

gain ideological hegemony. But its the ideas, not an organized left.

>From socialist worker online