Neoliberalism in Europe
(Coord. milanesa de soporte a la lucha zapatista -
Franco.Romano'@galactica.it)
This report is written by the following comrades from Italy:
Claudio Molteni (Trade Union - Cgil) Laura Disilvestro
(internationalist women and International Civil Service), Marina
Merlini, Franco Romanò (Commetee of supporto to zapatista
fight of Milan and International Civil Service)
NEOLIBERISM IN EUROPE.
The dogma of Maastricht criteria is creating heavier and heavier
social conditions; meanwhile it is pushing European governments in a
sort of 'cul de sac'. The choice made by President Chirac to
anticipate the general elections and his defeat are the consequence
of the struggles carried on in France in 95 and 96, of the movement
of the European marches for employment and against all exclusions, to
the Renault facts and to the demonstration which was held in
Amsterdam on 14th June last. The blows to the project of a European
currency are coming from everywhere and even Kohl government is in
great difficulty.
The European network against neoliberism is growing in a moment
when new and important contradictions may rise, but the most serious
problem we aren't still able to resolve is how to give continuity to
the struggles, a certain mark of unity ( respecting differences) and
synchrony of time.
THE ANTAGONIST MOVEMENTS IN EUROPE.
Some very important movements were born this year in Europe. The
feature of this movement which is both nomadic an chaotic is
strategically much important as it adheres perfectly to the nature of
capitalism that is anarchist in its essence. Thus this movements
seems to us a good' translation' of what Che Guevara said 30 years
ago, that is 'to create one, a hundred, a thousand Vietnam' that
translated could sound like' let's create one, a hundred a thousand
social movements'.
Let's now consider its limits:
* European movements tends to be solidaristic with Chiapas more
than representing a network of resistance to neoliberism.
* the build of the network of resistence has made many steps
forward in communications by Internet, ( which is overestimated in
our opinion), less in other types of communication. To speak to sound
and living bodies is different than speaking virtually.
* Finally the network of movements does not resolve what may be
pointed out a ' general subjectivity', bus simply eludes it. For
these reasons its initiative has been fragmentary, scarcely able to
involve those who share similar ideas but not exactly the same.
The marches against unemployment and social exclusion and for the
reduction of working hours, are an important experience of struggle
against neoliberism in Europe and have brought once more on the stage
more traditional and class subjects. European marches are an
important part of the movement against neoliberism and of that
process which should bring to the foundation of the International of
Hope. In fact they have been born for the necessity to make the
antagonist politics an international one, overcoming national
borders, just when the logic of separation and fragmentation can put
European workers against each other. Last but not least this movement
has immediately seen in Maastricht criteria the heart of neoliberism
in Europe.
The possibility of further growth is connected to the dialogue
among the different groups and political forces. It is impossible to
get rid of the movement of resistance made by workers against the
dismantling of industries Europe; meanwhile it is necessary to create
bridges, ways of communications between this part of the movement and
those who will never or nearly have a job or think that wage-earning
work must be refused. The problem, anyway, is to understand that
overcoming wage-earning work is incompatible with the existence of a
capitalistic system and that many initiatives of the so called third
sector or no profit ( as we sometimes name it in Italy), are not
examples of self-management of resources but are simply tertiary
sector. Anyway, to be against wage-earning work does not mean to be
against wage-earners..
The problem of Welfare and the social conflitcts against the
dismantling of rights and social services furnished by the state,
must be considered in this context. These problems are present in
some ' claims without conflict' in Italy and similar claims are
present in the people that voted for the left in France: that is a
demand for social policies or keynesian one, based on new public
investments as a barrier agaisnt the toughness of Maastricht
criteria. But the treaty of Maastricht is not a mixture of measure on
the economic ground, it is also culture and ideology. Maastricht, is
the frame and the reference point for the dismantling of social
policies, the necessity of a substantial rescission of the social
compromise established at the end of Second World War, the visible
hegemony among the ruling classes for an option towards capital when
it makes itself as a state ruler getting rid of political mediation.
The build of European monetary community makes evident this deep and
rooted trend of neoliberism and puts into action dynamics that
overcome Maastricht treaty itself.
The nostalgia for a mythical welfare state risk to turn the
movements towards policies that have no future in the context of
Maastricht, in a situation which is lacking of models as they are
searched only in the frame of the liberal tradition.
All social classes, in this occurrence, tend to act out of their
political representations and this create in Italy the possibility of
a reactionary mass movement like Lega Nord, for instance. On the
other hand the antagonist left and that part of the traditional left
that may be oriented towards an alternative strategy, are still
unable to make the opposition we all need, visible. To build a
reference point we think that we have to push on the social non
incompatibility of the policies carried on by Governments, claiming
for more sociality ( not more traditional Welfare State), more
resources for the social policies.
Compulsory nomadism, precariousness, migrations, will be
increasing in the near future, surrounding and isolating the isles of
legal work. Under this point of view the present debate on Welfare is
misunderstanding. One should in fact to hurl again a proposal of
social and useful jobs, introducing elements of self-management and
claiming for an increased amount of social expenditure, directly
ruled by the network still existing (NGO and others). In the
meantime, as an eventual and new break in the capitalistic structure
of the society couldn't occur following model of the past, in the
same way a new society could not have the same features and the same
should be for the way of ustilizing the social surplus. Even new
compromises following eventual revolutionary breaks, could not
follows the same tracks experimented in the past. What is necessary
is a new language, also. Welfare state is not a definition for the
future.
The limits that we must try to overcome are many. We'll try to
show them and suggest some possible proposals. The first concerns the
build of the International of Hope. To act as an assembly when we are
all together and to be a network when we are separated is not enough.
It is necessary to establish common appointments of struggle and
utilise other means besides Internet. The first proposal we make is
to build a European linkage among the many and different antagonist
broadcastings, to build a European editorial staff dedicated to
neoliberism. The point is not to build a new broadcasting station,
but to create groups inside the editorial staff still existing,
especially dedicated to neoliberism, able to diffuse the initivaves
that take place everywhere in Europe, ad in the world. One hour of
broadcast every week with the same title, everywhere is possible with
services, analysis, proposals. Only thanks to the wider circulation
of information we'll be able to find common chances for common fights
and not simple demonstrations without continuity. As for the contents
we see there priorities:
* The active support to the marches for job and against all forms
of social exclusion.
* a boycott campaign against banks implied in the 'debt affair',
following the example of British group Lamb, which has brought to
important results.
* The launch of a campaign of massive occupation of spaces,
dismantled area in the cities or in countryside for the control of
territory.
Territory, in fact, has become the container of social desease and
even the place where the state tend to retire as a provider of
services, leaving to criminal powers the rule, or simply abandoning
some areas to decay. To control the territory means also organising
and experimenting self-management, stemming home speculation which
push higher the cost of housing, creating chances for jobs. It is
necessary to start from practical situations, to identify specific
needs, to give flexible answers to social demand of job, care,
medical assistance, culture. Immigrants are surely involved in such a
process.
A second step to undertake is sorting out of a mentality which
tends to ask for something to someone else. The claims on which a new
movement may grow cannot be based on the famous Delors plan. The so
called social Europe won't exist. The only Europe existing is
Maastricht, there won't be another unless radical changes take place.
The recent meeting of governments in Amsterdam has shown how it is
impossible to force the frame of this dominant model with some
reforms. It is useful, from a tactical point of view, that the
contradictions between the build of the monetary unit of Europe and
its political and social unity, has come out and has caused many
troubles among governments. In fact, the rise of such contradictions
may give room and time to an opposition to Maastricht criteria,
opposition which is present among wide strata of the European
population, probably the majority. Meanwhile it is anyway evident
that the reached compromise shows how there are no real chances to
correct a system being inside its logic. Everybody has understood, in
fact, that the compromise reached is based on the confirmation of
criteria and date of the monetary build, and on statements which are
merely virtual for what concerns social problems. This is the
evidence that the toughness of Maastricht criteria does not allow any
manoeuvring independently from the coalition of government which is
on power. The difficulties of governments ( in France in particular)
must be used and addressed towards radical changes in political
choices, and to find out the right way to hit the way of production
in its heart.
In this context a particular importance is the self employment.We
cannot forget that the huge increasing of the self employment had not
occurred in a phase of economic growth, neither as a free choice in a
context of different options, but in a situation of lacking and
diminishing of job and salary. The great part of self employment is
characterised by:
* complete flexibility of time hours.
* salaries a great deal under the minimum established by trade
unions (illegal work is another thing).
* complete lacking of rights by the workers.
The real and strategic objective of capital becomes here evident:
to state at a constitutional and institutional level that work and
workers are mere goods ( as Karl Marx affirmed more than a century
ago) and that state interventions must be addressed to support
enterprises independently from the fact that such and enterprise
matches or not social sustainability.
Another economic compartment to be attacked is the sector based on
just in time delivery. Such system may work only if society is
globally efficient. The nerve centres are two: the collection of
orders with the connected system of communications and transport ( a
firm working with this system cannot afford delays exceeding three
hours). We must undertake political actions in these two sectors
because to put them in crisis means to boycott the whole system and
this fact has immediate consequences on profits. To blow the pool of
firms which avail of the just in time delivery procedures is
possibile and can be managed even by small groups of organized
people, blocking transports or other, so as to cause a great damage
to entreprises.
SUMMARY.
The network against neoliberism is improving but we are not still
able to link our forces. A proposal to do this, could be a weekly and
common broadcast dedicated to initiatives against neoliberism.
Welfare State and requests of more sociality and rights are
discussed. In the end are taken into considerations some nerve
centres of production in neoliberism: self emplyment (often just a
disguised wage-earning job), and the just in time delivery system.