Tuesday, July 3, 2012

english unofficial traslation - European summit - PCm Italy declaration

The European Summit held in late June, hailed as a victory for Italy and Spain supported by France and as a partial defeat for Merkel, can not yet be considered a real and important step for European governments to face in conditions of larger unity the financial crisis by which are affected. It should be seen from different sides: the relationships between the different European countries, the relationships within the European countries, the overall scenario of the relationship between governments, proletarians and masses in Europe.
The relationships between the different european countries.
It is clear that the fall of Sarkozy has temporarily weakened the Franco-German axis, which hitherto had been a strong point, particularly for the German Government, that through this axis was able to impose its policy. The so-called "Merkozy" can not be quickly turned into the "Merkhollande".
In the course of the Summit, this has encouraged the action of Italian and Spanish governments in demanding a stronger and and less expensive support as a counterpart to the strict policies they are applying. In this sense, indeed, the Spanish and Italian governments have achieved on paper a result, that is concentrated on the points concerning the mechanism "safe-spreads" and the "save-states" Fund, ie an almost automatic intervention for the access and the use of this Fund to counter the speculation and recapitalize the support to the banking system whenever it is in serious difficulties. But it will be seen whether this is actually implemented , because the the words of the agreement "in a flexible and effective way" give room for interpretations which leave the command baton essentially in the hands of Germany.
The summit also produced an opening to the Eurobonds, in the form of the so-called "project bonds" that should be used to finance infrastructure works, basically a plan for a growth based almost exclusively on this. on this has weighed the partial change of policy made by the Hollande government , closer to the Eurobond setting than the Sarkozy government . In this sense, Merkel had to take a step back compared to rigid statements of recent weeks.
Internally in Germany, this has been reflected in motions within the parliament. Some members of the majority disagreed, replaced by SPD opposition parliamentaries which support the policies approved by Merkel at the summit. It is too early to see whether these changes in relationships between governments reflect real political changes.
The relationships within the European countries.
Among these countries, the governments of Italy, Spain and the new French have scored a point in favour to the consistency of their parliamentary majorities and also to their internal system relationships - employers, banks, etc.- while we have already said that the government German meets a phase of lower internal consistency.
The Europe as a whole takes from this passage an advantage in the overall international dispute, because it gives a sign of greater internal unity. Again, it is still too early to estimate whether this constitutes a signal towards a greater integration and unity as bloc.
The overall scenario of the relationship between governments, proletarians and masses in Europe.
From this perspective, the summit marked a victory of the bourgeoisie and a very bad thing for the proletariat and the masses.
Generally, is still correct what we always pointed out: in the crisis, the bourgeoisie unloads on the proletarians and masses the effects of it to safeguard the system and profits and the proletarians are victims to sacrifice on the altar of the safeguard and recovery of profits. Every step in this direction weakens the working class and strengthens the bourgeoisie. The proletarians have no interest on the exit of the crisis of the bourgeoisie, because the only exit from the crisis that is on benefit the workers is one that involves the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the exit from capitalism.
The Summit definitely confirms this view. The Italian and Spanish governments have relied on the strength that came from having been able to realize internally the so-called "reforms" that deeply attacked the proletariat and the masses.
In Spain, the only countertendency that has currently emerged is the great struggle of miners of Asturias, whose strong resistance challenges the State, bosses and government in a situation of social conflict in which the "indignados" and the so-called left opposition forces have disappeared - we should not include in these the Socialist Party of the former premier Zapatero, which easily surrendered to the new government because it shares the policy and basic interests.
In Italy the situation is even worse than in Spain. Monti resulted the moral and practical winner of this summit and it is due to having been able to implement economic measures against the workers and the people, the strategic pensions reform and the even more strategic labor reform. Monti becomes a giant in Europe thanks to the social bloc that supports him, the bosses, parliamentary parties and official unions and due to lack of resistance and social revolt by the workers and broad masses.
The Monti's and Italian victory at the summit certifies the defeat of the proletarians of Italy, who pay with tears and blood the cost of the crisis, opposing a too weak resistance.
The change of government from Berlusconi to Monti was healthy for the bourgeoisie and gave to the current bourgeois government a seat at the table of the bosses of Europe, with an active role, while it has been just the opposite for the proletarians and the masses. The decay, human, political and moral of Berlusconi and his government who had expressed the point of maximum weakness for the bourgeoisie as a whole, has been replaced by a strong government with free hands, that has translated into practice the modern fascism as dictatorship of technicians and imposed, without a fight, policies that strike at the heart the condition of workers and proletarians, their achievements in the past decades, of which the Article. 18 of the Labor Code is rightly a symbol.
Any strengthening of the government in the crisis goes along with the weakening of the proletariat, lacking it a political and social resistance.
The Brussels Summit encourages the European bourgeoisies to go ahead on their road, whatever the name of their governments, whatever the majority that supports them. They are all basically governments of national unity, that is 'business committees' and repressive State apparatuses.
Encouraged by the Summit, the Monti government prepares new devastating measures that behind words "spending review" conceals the fierce cuts like in Greece, even though we are not in the conditions of Greece.
The new attacks on the health care, the public sector employment are not partial attacks but a further link of the reactionary transformation of the State and the relationship between State, social spending, living conditions of proletarians and the masses.
Even if a part of the trade union movement and of the Left Opposition develop parts of this complaint, the overall framework of the situation is denied, obscured, diluted and therefore, beyond the words, they do not struggle really against it.
The pensions reform was not to pass, the labor reform and the attack on article 18 were not to pass, the announced new “spending review” reform is not to pass, as well as in the factories, the Marchionne’s plan and the bosses’ fascism were not to pass, nor it was to pass the systematic use of the Police State, the trials, arrests, fines, persecutions that daily hit those who oppose, the No Tav movement like the unemployed in Taranto, the immigrant workers in Basiano, the local movements, up to the students and anti-fascists.
But so far all this has passed. Government, bosses and the State did not pay any serious political price. Therefore, the situation, instead of getting better, worsens.
The levels of consciousness of the workers and the masses did not grow.
Some struggles, cries, anger, indignation, electoral abstention testified that a potential of struggle and rebellion certainly exists as well as a willingness of the proletariat and the masses to respond with the struggle, and even something more than the struggle, to the front attack of which they are target, but it weighs the lack of the even basic tools for a general answer.
The lack of these tools does not depend mainly on objective conditions, but on the subjective conditions and organizational forms that still exist in the ranks of the proletariat and the masses: unions firmly on the side of the bosses, CISL and UIL, and unions firmly in defense of the State and the general interest of the bosses, even when they have contradictions with the government, or single decisions of the bosses.
The role of played the CGIL in the devastating escalation of unloading the crisis on the working class is even more harmful than that of the trade unions openly on the side of the bosses, because it aims at a consultation from the outside that is a decisive glue to make pass the plans of bosses and government.
The ambiguous role of the Fiom, with one foot in and one foot out, remains a weak link of the workers' resistance and the necessary resumption of a general struggle.
Among the most radical union opposition forces and the movements, the lack of understanding the nature and forms with which to carry out this fight does not help to build, despite the efforts, the strength for the counteroffensive. They do not understand or want to understand that in order to defy the government, bosses, the State we have to win the the two-lines-struggle and the "civil war" within the working class and the mass movements against the opportunist and reformist positions and groupings, of which the various former parliamentary left transformists are part, Casarini, Bernocchi, etc.
The flag of the current struggle is not and should not be the unity, but rather the struggle for unity based on the clearness about what is the battle to do and the lot at stake. we need the unity of the communists for a genuine revolutionary Party, in theory and practice, we need the unity for a union of class and mass, going beyond the current base unions and anomalous FIOM, we need the unity for a people's and proletarian Front that puts the struggle and fight at the centre of its activity.
If we were to watch the outcome of EU summit, objectively we should be very optimistic, the economic solutions of this Summit have no future. As someone correctly observed, these solutions have been already applied in the US, under conditions in which they can work better, and there they are not restraining the crisis, but rather are preparing a new outbreak, in some ways tragic for the world economy.
Europe follows the path of US in much worse conditions and thus the "historical" measures approved at last Summit will soon prove to be "talk and badge". Clearly, this optimism just make us say that there are now, and can grow in the future, the conditions for an adequate response of the proletariat and the masses. Each signal in this direction, whatever the country from which it comes, must be seen as an encouragement and indication - see the ongoing Asturian miners great strike, but also the students strike in Quebec, as well as the hundreds of outbreaks in all countries, including ours.
Marching along its road, the Monti government sows wind and can reap storm, and every step of its march may be the 'spark that ignites the prairie'.

Proletari comunisti- PCm Italy 3rd of July 2012.

No comments:

Post a Comment