#international trade union confederation

[kp777]

By Olivia Rosane

Common Dreams

Sept. 23, 2024

"Unless we're organized and demanding responsive governments that actually meet the needs of people, it's corporate power that's going to set the agenda," one organizer said.

Big Tech, Big Oil, and private equity firms are among the leading companies that profit from controlling media and technology, accelerating the climate crisis, privatizing public goods and services, and violating human and workers' rights, the International Trade Union Confederation revealed on Monday.

The ITUC has labeled seven major companies as "corporate underminers of democracy" that lobby against government attempts to hold them accountable and are headed by super-rich individuals who fund right-wing political movements and leaders.

"This is about power, who has it, and who sets the agenda," Todd Brogan, director of campaigns and organizing at the ITUC, toldThe Guardian. "We know as trade unionists that unless we're organized, the boss sets the agenda in the workplace, and we know as citizens in our countries that unless we're organized and demanding responsive governments that actually meet the needs of people, it's corporate power that's going to set the agenda."

The "corporate underminers of democracy" are:

1. Amazon.com, Inc. 2. Blackstone Group 3. ExxonMobil 4. Glencore 5. Meta 6. Tesla 7. The Vanguard Group

ITUC chose the seven companies based on preexisting reporting and research, as well as talks with allied groups like the Council of Global Unions and the Reactionary International Research Consortium. The seven companies were "emblematic" of a broader trend, and the confederation said it would continue to add "market-leading" companies to the list.

"While these seven corporations are among the most egregious underminers of democracy, they are hardly alone," ITUC said. "Whether state-owned enterprises in China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia; private sector military contractors; or regulation-busting tech startups, the ITUC and its partners will continue to identify and track corporate underminers of democracy and their links to the far-right."

Amazon topped the list due to its "union busting and low wages on multiple continents, monopoly in e-commerce, egregious carbon emissions through its AWS data centers, corporate tax evasion, and lobbying at national and international level," ITUC wrote.

In the U.S., for example, Amazon has responded to attempts to hold it accountable for labor violations by challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board. While its founder Jeff Bezos voices liberal opinions, Amazon's political donations have advanced the right by challenging women's rights and antitrust efforts.

"There is another force, one that is unelected and seeks to dominate global affairs."

Blackstone is the world's largest private equity firm and private real-estate owner whose CEO, Stephen Schwarzman, has given to right-wing politicians including former U.S. President Donald Trump's 2024 reelection campaign. It funds fossil fuel projects and the destruction of the Amazon and profited from speculating on the housing market after the 2008 financial crash.

The United Nations special papporteur on housing said the company used "its significant resources and political leverage to undermine domestic laws and policies that would in fact improve access to adequate housing."

ExxonMobil made the list largely for its history of funding climate denial and its ongoing lobbying against needed environmental regulations.

"Perhaps the greatest example of Exxon's disinterest in democratic deliberation was its corporate commitment of nearly four decades to conceal from the public its own internal evidence that climate change was real, accelerating, and driven by fossil fuel use while simultaneously financing far-right think tanks in the U.S. and Europe to inject climate scepticism and denialism into the public discourse," ITUC wrote.

Glencore is the world's largest commodities trader and the largest mining company when judged by revenue. Several civil society and Indigenous rights groups have launched campaigns against it over its anti-democratic policies. It has allegedly funded right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia and anti-protest vigilantes in Peru.

"The company's undermining of democracy is not in dispute, as it has in recent years pled guilty to committing bribery, corruption, and market manipulation in countries as varied as Venezuela, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria, and South Sudan," ITUC said.

As the world's largest social media company, Meta's platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram have roughly as many users as everyone expected to vote in 2024 worldwide—almost 4 billion. Yet there are concerns about what its impact on those elections will be, as right-wing groups from the U.S. to Germany to India have used Facebook to recruit new members and target marginalized groups.

"Meta continues to aid right-wing political interests in weaponizing its algorithms to spread hate-filled propaganda around the world," ITUC wrote. "Increasingly, it has been engaged in dodging national regulation through the deployment of targeted lobbying campaigns."

Tesla made the list for its "belligerent" anti-union stance, as well as the vocal anti-worker and right-wing politics of its CEO, Elon Musk. Of Musk, ITUC observed:

As owner of the social networking platform X (formerly Twitter), he responded to one user's allegations about a coup in Bolivia–a country with lithium reserves considered highly valuable for electric vehicle manufacturers like Tesla–by saying, "We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it!" He has committed to donating $45 million per month to a political action committee to support the reelection campaign of Donald Trump, and sought to build close relationships with other far-right leaders, including Argentina's Javier Milei and India's Narendra Modi. Musk has also re-platformed and clearly expressed his support of white nationalist, antisemitic, and anti-LGBTQ+ accounts since taking ownership of X.

No. 7 on the list is The Vanguard Group, an institutional investor that funds many of the other companies on the list, including with billions in the stock held by workers' retirement plans.

"Effectively, Vanguard uses the deferred wages of workers to lend capital to the self-same companies complicit in undermining democracy at work and in societies globally," ITUC wrote.

ITUC is exposing these companies in part to advance its agenda for a "New Social Contract" that would ensure "a world where the economy serves humanity, rights are protected, and the planet is preserved for future generations."

It and other workers' organizations plan to push this agenda at international gatherings like the U.N. General Assembly and Summit of the Future in New York this week as well as the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan in November. Yet part of advancing this agenda means raising awareness about the opposition.

"There is another force, one that is unelected and seeks to dominate global affairs. It pushes a competing vision for the world that maintains inequalities and impunity for bad-faith actors, finances far-right political operatives, and values private profit over public and planetary good," ITUC wrote. "That force is corporate power."

However, Brogan told The Guardian that labor groups, when organized across borders, could fight back.

"Now is the time for international and multi-sectoral strategies, because these are, in many cases, multinational corporations that are more powerful than states, and they have no democratic accountability whatsoever, except for workers organized," Brogan said.

To that end, ITUC is gathering signatures for a petition for a global treaty holding corporate power in check.

"For international institutions like the United Nations to reflect the democratic will of workers, they must be willing to hold these corporate underminers of democracy accountable," the petition reads. "That is why we are calling on you to support a robust binding international treaty on business and human rights, one that addresses the impact of transnational corporations on the human rights of millions of working people."

[worldchildlabourday]

 Urgent action to end child labour.

ITUC General Secretary Luc Triangle said: “The world has made a promise to children to end child labour by 2025 as stated in SDG Target 8.7. But there are still 160m children working today. Governments must scale up their efforts to tackle poverty and social injustice, and propose urgent rights-based action as set out in the Durban Call to Action. They can learn a lot from the work done by trade unions.”

 Trades Union Congress Ghana affiliate, the General Agriculture Workers’ Union, introduced a child labour clause in collective agreements, campaigned on the right to education for children and advocated an area-based approach to end child labour with support from the Global March Against Child Labour.

 In Bangladesh, with support from ITUC-Asia Pacific, unions joined efforts to accelerate the elimination of child labour by organising workers and rescue missions, advocating for stricter regulations and effective enforcement.

 A rise in the exploitation of immigrant children by corporations in dangerous workplaces around the USA led the AFL- CIO to renew its call for strong laws to prevent child labour abuse and to hold employers accountable by increasing penalties.

 In the Netherlands, the CNV and the FNV actively work for the elimination of child labour in supply chains through agreements with Dutch companies on international responsible business conduct. Their affiliates also support trade unions in Asia and Africa to introduce child labour-free zones.

Luc Triangle continued: “As long as workers continue to struggle for a decent living wage and adequate social protection, we will witness the scourge of child labour. We want a New Social Contract for decent work for all workers, so that parents can earn a good living and children can learn at school. To achieve these reforms, we need democracy in every workplace, and beyond, so workers always have a say.

“Ending corporate greed is essential to ending child labour. That means enforcing due diligence in global supply chains and holding businesses to account for their exploitation of workers and children, particularly in agriculture, where over 70 per cent of child labour occurs.

“We urge all nations to improve their implementation of ILO Convention 182, on the worst forms of child labour and we urge the ratification of Convention 138 on Minimum Age by the 11 governments who have not yet done so”.

Governments should also use the Pact for the Future, that will be adopted during the SDG Summit of the Future in September 2024, to intensify efforts to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking, and eliminate all forms of child labour.

To mark the World Day Against Child Labour, there will be a high-level event at the International Labour Conference that can be watched online here.

On 20 June, the Global March Against Child Labour is organising an event to showcase its area-based approach. Details on how to join the event online are available here.

International Trade Union Confederation

[gacha-incels]

Korean IT Union’s International Women’s Day post

[panicinthestudio]

Further reading:

HKFP: Hong Kong says trade union rights ‘intact’ as UN body questions impact of security law on shrinking civil society, February 16, 2023

[mapsontheweb]

Top Ten Worst Countries for Working People

The Philippines remained as one of the countries to have the worst violations of workers’ rights in the 2022 Global Rights Index by the International Trade Union Confederation. The ninth edition of the index documented and analyzed 148 countries according to 97 indicators derived from the International Labor Organization’s conventions and jurisprudence. The countries were rated from 1 to 5+ on the degree of respect for workers’ rights. With a rating of 5 or “no guarantee of rights,” this marked the sixth straight year that the Philippines was included in the top 10 worst countries for workers.

[cartermagazine]

Today We Honor Oluale Kossola, Renamed Cudjo Lewis

Zora Neale Hurston tells the story of Cudjo Lewis, who was born Oluale Kossola in what is now the West African country of Benin in her book “Barracoon: The Story of the Last “Black Cargo.”

A member of the Yoruba people, he was only 19 years old when members of the neighboring Dahomian tribe invaded his village, captured him along with others, and marched them to the coast.

There, he and about 120 others were sold into slavery, after the “Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" took effect in 1808 slavery was abolished, and crammed onto the Clotilda, the “last” slave ship to reach the continental United States.

The Clotilda brought its captives to Alabama in 1860, just a year before the outbreak of the Civil War. Even though slavery was legal at that time in the U.S., the international slave trade was not, and hadn’t been for over 50 years. Along with many European nations, the U.S. had outlawed the practice in 1808.

After being abducted from his home, Lewis was forced onto a ship with strangers. The abductees spent several months together during the treacherous passage to the United States, but were then separated in Alabama to go to different owners.

“We very sorry to be parted from one ’nother,” Lewis told Hurston. “We seventy days cross de water from de Affica soil, and now dey part us from one ’nother.”

“Derefore we cry. Our grief so heavy look lak we cain stand it. I think maybe I die in my sleep when I dream about my mama.”

“We doan know why we be bring ’way from our country to work lak dis,” he told Hurston. “Everybody lookee at us strange. We want to talk wid de udder colored folkses but dey doan know whut we say.”

Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered in April 1865, Lewis says that a group of Union soldiers stopped by a boat on which he and other enslaved people were working and told them they were free.

He and a group of 31 other freepeople saved up money to buy land near Mobile, which they called Africatown.

CARTER™️ Magazine

[vren-diagram]

The Nordic model has been characterized as follows:[16]

An elaborate social safety net, in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare[16] in a largely tax-funded system.[17]

Strong property rights, contract enforcement and overall ease of doing business.[18]

Public pension plans.[16]

High levels of democracy as seen in the Freedom in the World survey and Democracy Index.[19][20]

Free trade combined with collective risk sharing (welfare social programmes and labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.[16]

Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.[16]

Low levels of corruption.[19][16] In Transparency International's 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden were ranked among the top 10 least corrupt of the 179 countries evaluated.[21]

A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace amongst themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law.[22][23] Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination while Finland is ranked the least flexible.[16] The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms.[16]

High trade union density and collective bargaining coverage.[24] In 2019, trade union density was 90.7% in Iceland, 67.0% in Denmark, 65.2% in Sweden, 58.8% in Finland, and 50.4% in Norway; in comparison, trade union density was 16.3% in Germany and 9.9% in the United States.[25] Additionally, in 2018, collective bargaining coverage was 90% in Iceland, 88.8% in Finland (2017), 88% in Sweden, 82% in Denmark, and 69% in Norway; in comparison collective bargaining coverage was 54% in Germany and 11.7% in the United States.[26] The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds.[27]

The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score.[28]

Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6% reflect very high public spending.[29] Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in comparison to the OECD average.[30]

Overall tax burdens as a percentage of GDP are high, with Denmark at 45.9% and both Finland and Sweden at 44.1%.[31] The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those with medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels.[32][33]

The United Nations World Happiness Reports show that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption.[34] The Nordic countries place in the top 10 of the World Happiness Report 2018, with Finland and Norway taking the top spots.[35]

x

I think a lot of people are missing that the Nordic model is:

generally very friendly to businesses

composed of largely organically set standards (workers rights secured by collective bargaining and trade-unions, not by a centralized authority) (as opposed to a centralized bureaucracy)

Largely structured to provide citizens with benefits that make workforce participation easier. The ordering of the social safety net and welfare state make it relatively easy to upskill and hold a job.

[cognitivejustice]

An International Labour Organization (ILO) report found that:

More than 86% of Indigenous peoples globally work in the informal economy, compared to 66% for their non-Indigenous counterparts.

Indigenous peoples are nearly three times more likely to be living in extreme poverty compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts.

The share of wage and salaried workers is considerably lower among the Indigenous (27.9%) than among the non-Indigenous (49.1%) population.

Globally, Indigenous peoples are earning 18.5% less than non-Indigenous people.

Workers’ unions are enhancing the representation of Indigenous peoples in their organisations and building alliances with Indigenous peoples’ organisations to address mutual concerns, including compliance with ILO C169:

New Zealand: Unions are advocating for legislation to make ethnic and gender pay gap reporting mandatory. This transparency is crucial to closing the significant gender pay gap faced by Indigenous women. While overall the gender pay gap between women and men in New Zealand is 8.6%, Pacific women in New Zealand earn around 26.5% less than non-Indigenous men.

Australia: Unions are working to ensure strong union representation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers, empowering them to achieve just wages, social protection and self-determined, fulfilling employment.

Norway: The Norwegian Trade Union Confederation (LO Norway) promotes Indigenous culture and identity through leadership, cultural outlets and support for the truth and reconciliation process

Latin America: To hold governments to account, trade unions are using the ILO’s supervisory mechanisms. This includes highlighting issues such as occupational safety and forced labour.

[elbiotipo]

I'm doing some political fixing to my Campoestela setting...

The main thing that was bothering me is how humans fit. Since this is a setting with multiple sentient species, each with their own civilizations and cultures (because I dislike the recent trend of human-only sci-fi setting, it's an intentional retro throw). However, the main thing here that allows such a diverse setting is the presence of diplomats/traders (because no universal translator!) and standarized equipment. Where did the latter come from, though? If there are older space civilizations than humanity, it must be humans who adapt to that standard, and I'm not nearly creative enough to build an entire alien technology set. If it was humans who "created" space civilization, it would mean they're way too important in the setting and I want humans just to be one civilization out of many.

My solution is that there would be a mix of both; humans have their own set of technology but they have adopted some alien tech and customs. This also throws me back to the early history of this setting. My idea is that humanity spread on its own on the Solar System, developing some standard space technology (perhaps there are equivalents of the Soyuz running around) before they invented FTL and added other alien standards to their own technological base. So human spaceships are similar and quite compatible, but they are very different to other civilizations. FTL is a whole discussion on itself, how did things come from big slow generation ships to aircraft-sized spaceships? I'll deal with that later.

Another thing I was never happy with was with the "Confederación Esteloplatense" thing, it's an ugly name (ironically it sounds better in English, Silverstar Confederation). OF COURSE there is a Space Argentina, and more accurately they are the descendants of the generation ship Esperanza, which had a mostly Argentine crew. But I've decided that, at least loosely, Argentina is part of a larger whole that includes the whole of South America or Latin America. I'm going to call it the Cruzur Union, the Union of the Southern Cross (Cruz del Sur). Rioplatenses, or Esteloplatenses, are just one nation inside of this wider... nation.

To see it from a wider perspective now, I'm picturing humanity in Campoestela much like the Ancient Greeks and Phoenicians (the Poleis model), establishing trading posts, colonies, communities and such all over space, but these are mostly independent from each other and only organized in very loose trade leagues and cultural alliances, with exceptions, there are few truly interstellar states beyond that. This is the Poleis model I made in my Space Empires post.

Ancient Greeks poleis were sorted by dialect and cultures (Doric, Aeolic, Attican, Ionic, real stuff) and their mother cities (the metropolis. And so, the human communities, all very independent and belonging to many overlapping organizations and alliances are also loosely grouped by their origins back on Earth. I'm imagining there were a couple wars and conflicts between the Western Powers (US/Europe) and the Eastern Powers (Russia/China), with other blocs such as the Cruzur, the African Union, the Arab League, India and more eventually overtaking the two. This is in the far past by now, it's like talking about the Habsburgs in the context of the modern European Union.

So, in this context, Beto, our loveable Argentine space trucker, is from the Esperanza Federation (name pending), a loose interstellar trade alliance of the descendants of generation ship of the same name. However, this alliance itself is part of the Cruzur, the old goverment of South America which still has a deep cultural and political influence. And Beto himself considers himself Rioplatense or Argentine, depending on the context. Oh, and he is part of a spacer syndicate that might or might not be international too. And of course he does belong to a wider human civilization or cultural sphere. If this is all complicated, it's because it's supposed to be, this setting is a bit of a reaction against single-culture, single-empire civilizations in space opera.

Why am I not making it the URSAL? Because this is a retro setting in the style of space opera. In real life sooner or later, we're gonna become all Star Trek communists (this is not a joke)

It's funny that this is all just background for a space trucker and a gamer girl having silly adventures.

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.3.8 What is anarcho-syndicalism?

Anarcho-syndicalism (as mentioned in section A.3.2) is a form of anarchism which applies itself (primarily) to creating industrial unions organised in an anarchist manner, using anarchist tactics (such as direct action) to create a free society. To quote “The Principles of Revolutionary Syndicalism” of the International Workers Association:

“Revolutionary Syndicalism is that movement of the working classes founded on the basis of class war, which strives for the union of manual and intellectual workers in economic fighting organisations, in order to prepare for and realise in practice their liberation from the yoke of wage-slavery and state oppression. Its goal is the reorganisation of social life on the basis of free communism through the collective revolutionary action of the working classes themselves. It takes the view that only the economic organisations of the proletariat are appropriate for the realisation of this task and turns therefore to the workers in their capacity as producers and generators of social value, in opposition to the modern political labour parties, which for constructive economic purpose do not come into consideration.” [quoted by Wayne Thorpe, “The Workers Themselves”, p. 322]

The word “syndicalism” is an English rendering of the French for “revolutionary trade unionism” (“syndicalisme revolutionarie”). In the 1890s many anarchists in France started to work within the trade union movement, radicalising it from within. As the ideas of autonomy, direct action, the general strike and political independence of unions which where associated with the French Confederation Generale du Travail (CGT, or General Confederation of Labour) spread across the world (partly through anarchist contacts, partly through word of mouth by non-anarchists who were impressed by the militancy of the CGT), the word “syndicalism” was used to describe movements inspired by the example of the CGT. Thus “syndicalism,” “revolutionary syndicalism” and “anarcho-syndicalism” all basically mean “revolutionary unionism” (the term “industrial unionism” used by the IWW essentially means the same thing).

The main difference is between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism, with anarcho-syndicalism arguing that revolutionary syndicalism concentrates too much on the workplace and, obviously, stressing the anarchist roots and nature of syndicalism more than the former. In addition, anarcho-syndicalism is often considered compatible with supporting a specific anarchist organisation to complement the work of the revolutionary unions. Revolutionary syndicalism, in contrast, argues that the syndicalist unions are sufficient in themselves to create libertarian socialism and rejects anarchist groups along with political parties. However, the dividing line can be unclear and, just to complicate things even more, some syndicalists support political parties and are not anarchists (there have been a few Marxist syndicalists, for example) but we will ignore these in our discussion. We will use the term syndicalism to describe what each branch has in common.

The syndicalist union is a self-managed industrial union (see section J.5.2) which is committed to direct action and refuses links with political parties, even labour or “socialist” ones. A key idea of syndicalism is that of union autonomy — the idea that the workers’ organisation is capable of changing society by its own efforts, that it must control its own fate and not be controlled by any party or other outside group (including anarchist federations). This is sometimes termed

“workerism” (from the French

“ouverierisme”), i.e. workers’ control of the class struggle and their own organisations. Rather than being a cross-class organisation like the political party, the union is a class organisation and is so uniquely capable of representing working class aspirations, interests and hopes. “The syndicat,” Emile Pouget wrote, “groups together those who work against those who live by human exploitation: it brings together interests and not opinions.” [quoted by Jeremy Jennings, Syndicalism in France, pp. 30–1] There is, then, “no place in it for anybody who was not a worker. Professional middle class intellectuals who provided both the leadership and the ideas of the socialist political movement, were therefore at a discount. As a consequence the syndicalist movement was, and saw itself as, a purely working class form of socialism.” Syndicalism “appears as the great heroic movement of the proletariat, the first movement which took seriously” the argument “that the emancipation of the working class must be the task of labour unaided by middle class intellectuals or by politicians and aimed to establish a genuinely working class socialism and culture, free of all bourgeois taints. For the syndicalists, the workers were to be everything, the rest, nothing.” [Geoffrey Ostergaard, The Tradition of Workers’ Control, p. 38]

Therefore syndicalism is “consciously anti-parliamentary and anti-political. It focuses not only on the realities of power but also on the key problem of achieving its disintegration. Real power in syndicalist doctrine is economic power. The way to dissolve economic power is to make every worker powerful, thereby eliminating power as a social privilege. Syndicalism thus ruptures all the ties between the workers and the state. It opposes political action, political parties, and any participant in political elections. Indeed it refuses to operate in the framework of the established order and the state. It “turns to direct action — strikes, sabotage, obstruction, and above all, the revolutionary general strike. Direct action not only perpetuates the militancy of the workers and keeps alive the spirit of revolt, but awakens in them a greater sense of individual initiative. By continual pressure, direct action tests the strength of the capitalist system at all times and presumably in its most important arena — the factory, where ruled and ruler seem to confront each other most directly.” [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 121]

This does not mean that syndicalism is “apolitical” in the sense of ignoring totally all political issues. This is a Marxist myth. Syndicalists follow other anarchists by being opposed to all forms of authoritarian/capitalist politics but do take a keen interest in “political” questions as they relate to the interests of working people. Thus they do not “ignore” the state, or the role of the state. Indeed, syndicalists (like all libertarians) are well aware that the state exists to protect capitalist property and power and that we need to combat it as well as fight for economic improvements. In short, syndicalism is deeply political in the widest sense of the word, aiming for a radical change in political, economic and social conditions and institutions. Moreover, it is political in the narrower sense of being aware of political issues and aiming for political reforms along with economic ones. It is only “apolitical” when it comes to supporting political parties and using bourgeois political institutions, a position which is “political” in the wider sense of course! This is obviously identical to the usual anarchist position (see section J.2.10).

Which indicates an importance difference between syndicalism and trade unionism. Syndicalism aims at changing society rather than just working within it. Thus syndicalism is revolutionary while trade unionism is reformist. For syndicalists the union “has a double aim: with tireless persistence, it must pursue betterment of the working class’s current conditions. But, without letting themselves become obsessed with this passing concern, the workers should take care to make possible and imminent the essential act of comprehensive emancipation: the expropriation of capital.” Thus syndicalism aims to win reforms by direct action and by this struggle bring the possibilities of a revolution, via the general strike, closer. Indeed any “desired improvement is to be wrested directly from the capitalist” and “must always represent a reduction in capitalist privileges and be a partial expropriation.” [Emile Pouget, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 71 and p. 73] Thus Emma Goldman:

“Of course Syndicalism, like the old trade unions, fights for immediate gains, but it is not stupid enough to pretend that labour can expect humane conditions from inhumane economic arrangements in society. Thus it merely wrests from the enemy what it can force him to yield; on the whole, however, Syndicalism aims at, and concentrates its energies upon, the complete overthrow of the wage system. “Syndicalism goes further: it aims to liberate labour from every institution that has not for its object the free development of production for the benefit of all humanity. In short, the ultimate purpose of Syndicalism is to reconstruct society from its present centralised, authoritative and brutal state to one based upon the free, federated grouping of the workers along lines of economic and social liberty. “With this object in view, Syndicalism works in two directions: first, by undermining the existing institutions; secondly, by developing and educating the workers and cultivating their spirit of solidarity, to prepare them for a full, free life, when capitalism shall have been abolished. “Syndicalism is, in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 91]

Which, in turn, explains why syndicalist unions are structured in such an obviously libertarian way. It reflects the importance of empowering every worker by creating a union which is decentralised and self-managed, a union which every member plays a key role in determining its policy and activities. Participation ensures that the union becomes a “school for the will” (to use Pouget’s expression) and allows working people to learn how to govern themselves and so do without the state. After the revolution, the union can easily be transformed into the body by which production is organised. The aim of the union is workers’ self-management of production and distribution after the revolution, a self-management which the union is based upon in the here and now. The syndicalist union is seen as “the germ of the Socialist economy of the future, the elementary school of Socialism in general” and we need to “plant these germs while there is yet time and bring them to the strongest possible development, so as to make the task of the coming social revolution easier and to insure its permanence.” [Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 59]

Thus, as can be seen, syndicalism differs from trade unionism in its structure, its methods and its aims. Its structure, method and aims are distinctly anarchist. Little wonder leading syndicalist theorist Fernand Pelloutier argued that the trade union, “governing itself along anarchic lines,” must become “a practical schooling in anarchism.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 55 and p. 57] In addition, most anarcho-syndicalists support community organisations and struggle alongside the more traditional industry based approach usually associated within syndicalism. While we have concentrated on the industrial side here (simply because this is a key aspect of syndicalism) we must stress that syndicalism can and does lend itself to community struggles. It is a myth that anarcho-syndicalism ignores community struggles and organisation, as can be seen from the history of the Spanish CNT for example (see section J.5.1).

It must be stressed that a syndicalist union is open to all workers regardless of their political opinions (or lack of them). The union exists to defend workers’ interests as workers and is organised in an anarchist manner to ensure that their interests are fully expressed. This means that an syndicalist organisation is different from an organisation of syndicalists. What makes the union syndicalist is its structure, aims and methods. Obviously things can change (that is true of any organisation which has a democratic structure) but that is a test revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalists welcome and do not shirk from. As the union is self-managed from below up, its militancy and political content is determined by its membership. As Pouget put it, the union “offers employers a degree of resistance in geometric proportion with the resistance put up by its members.” [Op. Cit., p. 71] That is why syndicalists ensure that power rests in the members of the union.

Syndicalists have two main approaches to building revolutionary unions --

“dual unionism” and

“boring from within.” The former approach involves creating new, syndicalist, unions, in opposition to the existing trade unions. This approach was historically and is currently the favoured way of building syndicalist unions (American, Italian, Spanish, Swedish and numerous other syndicalists built their own union federations in the heyday of syndicalism between 1900 and 1920). “Boring from within” simply means working within the existing trade unions in order to reform them and make them syndicalist. This approach was favoured by French and British syndicalists, plus a few American ones. However, these two approaches are not totally in opposition. Many of the dual unions were created by syndicalists who had first worked within the existing trade unions. Once they got sick of the bureaucratic union machinery and of trying to reform it, they split from the reformist unions and formed new, revolutionary, ones. Similarly, dual unionists will happily support trade unionists in struggle and often be “two carders” (i.e. members of both the trade union and the syndicalist one). See section J.5.3 for more on anarchist perspectives on existing trades unions.

Syndicalists no matter what tactics they prefer, favour autonomous workplace organisations, controlled from below. Both tend to favour syndicalists forming networks of militants to spread anarchist/syndicalist ideas within the workplace. Indeed, such a network (usually called “Industrial Networks” — see section J.5.4 for more details) would be an initial stage and essential means for creating syndicalist unions. These groups would encourage syndicalist tactics and rank and file organisation during struggles and so create the potential for building syndicalist unions as libertarian ideas spread and are seen to work.

Syndicalists think that such an organisation is essential for the successful creation of an anarchist society as it builds the new world in the shell of the old, making a sizeable majority of the population aware of anarchism and the benefits of anarchist forms of organisation and struggle. Moreover, they argue that those who reject syndicalism “because it believes in a permanent organisation of workers” and urge “workers to organise ‘spontaneously’ at the very moment of revolution” promote a “con-trick, designed to leave ‘the revolutionary movement,’ so called, in the hands of an educated class … [or] so-called ‘revolutionary party’ … [which] means that the workers are only expected to come in the fray when there’s any fighting to be done, and in normal times leave theorising to the specialists or students.” [Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against, pp. 82–3] A self-managed society can only be created by self-managed means, and as only the practice of self-management can ensure its success, the need for libertarian popular organisations is essential. Syndicalism is seen as the key way working people can prepare themselves for revolution and learn to direct their own lives. In this way syndicalism creates a true politics of the people, one that does not create a parasitic class of politicians and bureaucrats (“We wish to emancipate ourselves, to free ourselves”, Pelloutier wrote, “but we do not wish to carry out a revolution, to risk our skin, to put Pierre the socialist in the place of Paul the radical” [quoted by Jeremy Jennings, Syndicalism in France, p. 17]).

This does not mean that syndicalists do not support organisations spontaneously created by workers’ in struggle (such as workers’ councils, factory committees and so on). Far from it. Syndicalists have played important roles in these kinds of organisation (as can be seen from the Russian Revolution, the factory occupations in Italy in 1920, the British Shop Steward movement and so on). This is because syndicalism acts as a catalyst to militant labour struggles and serves to counteract class-collaborationist tendencies by union bureaucrats and “socialist” politicians. Part of this activity must involve encouraging self-managed organisations where none exist and so syndicalists support and encourage all such spontaneous movements, hoping that they turn into the basis of a syndicalist union movement or a successful revolution. Moreover, most anarcho-syndicalists recognise that it is unlikely that every worker, nor even the majority, will be in syndicalist unions before a revolutionary period starts. This means new organisations, created spontaneously by workers in struggle, would have to be the framework of social struggle and the post-capitalist society rather than the syndicalist union as such. All the syndicalist union can do is provide a practical example of how to organise in a libertarian way within capitalism and statism and support spontaneously created organisations.

It should be noted that while the term “syndicalism” dates from the 1890s in France, the ideas associated with these names have a longer history. Anarcho-syndicalist ideas have developed independently in many different countries and times. Indeed, anyone familiar with Bakunin’s work will quickly see that much of his ideas prefigure what was latter to become known by these terms. Similarly, we find that the American International Working People’s Association organised by anarchists in the 1880s “anticipated by some twenty years the doctrine of anarcho-syndicalism” and ”[m]ore than merely resembling the ‘Chicago Idea’ [of the IWPA], the IWW’s principles of industrial unionism resulted from the conscious efforts of anarchists … who continued to affirm … the principles which the Chicago anarchists gave their lives defending.” [Salvatore Salerno, Red November, Black November, p. 51 and p. 79] See section H.2.8 for a discussion of why Marxist claims that syndicalism and anarchism are unrelated are obviously false.

(We must stress that we are not arguing that Bakunin “invented” syndicalism. Far from it. Rather, we are arguing that Bakunin expressed ideas already developed in working class circles and became, if you like, the “spokesperson” for these libertarian tendencies in the labour movement as well as helping to clarifying these ideas in many ways. As Emma Goldman argued, the “feature which distinguishes Syndicalism from most philosophies is that it represents the revolutionary philosophy of labour conceived and born in the actual struggle and experience of workers themselves — not in universities, colleges, libraries, or in the brain of some scientists.” [Op. Cit., pp. 88–9] This applies equally to Bakunin and the first International).

Given this, we must also point out here that while syndicalism has anarchist roots, not all syndicalists are anarchists. A few Marxists have been syndicalists, particularly in the USA where the followers of Daniel De Leon supported Industrial Unionism and helped form the Industrial Workers of the World. The Irish socialist James Connelly was also a Marxist-syndicalist, as was Big Bill Haywood who was a leader of the IWW and a leading member of the US Socialist Party. Marxist-syndicalists are generally in favour of more centralisation within syndicalist unions (the IWW was by far the most centralised syndicalist union) and often argue that a political party is required to complement the work of the union. Needless to say, anarcho-syndicalists disagree, arguing that centralisation kills the spirit of revolt and weakens a unions real strength and that political parties are both ineffective when compared to militant unionism and a constant source of corruption. [Rocker, Op. Cit., pp. 55–60] So not all syndicalists are anarchists, leading those anarchists who are syndicalists often use the term “anarcho-syndicalism” to indicate that they are both anarchists and syndicalists as well as to stress the libertarian roots and syndicalism. In addition, not all anarchists are syndicalists. We discuss the reasons for this in the next section.

For more information on anarcho-syndicalist ideas, Rudolf Rocker’s Anarcho-Syndicalism is still the classic introduction to the subject. The collection of articles by British syndicalist Tom Brown entitled Syndicalism is also worth reading. Daniel Guerin’s No Gods, No Masters contains articles by leading French syndicalist thinkers.

[kp777]

Amazon, Tesla and Meta among world’s top companies undermining democracy – report

Sept. 22, 2024

Excerpt:

Some of the world’s largest companies have been accused of undermining democracy across the world by financially backing far-right political movements, funding and exacerbating the climate crisis, and violating trade union rights and human rights in a report published on Monday by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

Amazon, Tesla, Meta, ExxonMobil, Blackstone, Vanguard and Glencore are the corporations included in the report. The companies’ lobbying arms are attempting to shape global policy at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York City on 22 and 23 September.

Read more.

[aftabkaran]

International Trade Union Confederation announced its support of Iranian protesters.

[beguines]

The workers feel that the complex of "their" organization, the trade union, has become such an enormous apparatus that it now obeys laws internal to its structure and its complicated functions, but foreign to the masses who have acquired a consciousness of their historical mission as a revolutionary class. They feel that their will for power is not adequately expressed, in a clear and precise sense, in the present institutional hierarchy. They feel that even in their own home, in the house they have built tenaciously, with patient effort, cementing it with their blood and tears, the machine crushes man and bureaucracy sterilizes the creative spirit. Banal and verbalistic dilettantism cannot hide the absence of precise ideas for the necessities of industrial production, or a lack of understanding for the psychology of the proletarian masses. These de facto conditions irritate the workers, but as individuals they are powerless to change them: the worlds and desires of each single man are too small in comparison to the iron laws inherent in the bureaucratic structure of the trade-union apparatus.

The leaders of the organization are oblivious to this deep and widespread crisis. The clearer it becomes that the working class is organized in forms that do not accord with its real historical structure; the more certain it is that the working class is not organized into an institution that perpetually adapts itself to the laws that govern the intimate process of the real historical development of the class itself: the more these leaders persist in blindness, and work to resolve dissensions and conflicts within the organization "legalistically". Eminently bureaucratic in spirit, they believe that an objective condition, rooted in the psychology that develops in the living experience of the workshop, can be overborne by speeches that move the emotions and with an agenda voted unanimously in an assembly stupefied by oratorical din and verbosity. Today, they are stirring themselves to "keep up with the times" and, to show that they are still capable of "trenchant thought", they are reviving the old and threadbare syndicalist ideology, insisting painfully on establishing an identity between the Soviet and the trade union, insisting painfully on the claim that the present system of union organization already constitutes the foundation for a Communist society, the system of forces which should embody the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[ . . . ]

The craft unions, the Chambers of Labour, the industrial federations and the General Confederation of Labour are the types of proletarian organization specific to the historical period dominated by capital. It can be maintained that they are in a certain sense an integral part of capitalist society, and have a function which is inherent in the régime of private property. In this period, when individuals are only valued as owners of commodities, which they trade as property, the workers too are forced to obey the iron laws of general necessity; they become traders in their sole property—their labour power and professional skills. More exposed to the risks of competition, the workers have accumulated their property in ever broader and more comprehensive "firms", they have created these enormous apparatuses for the concentration of work energy, they have imposed prices and hours and have disciplined the market. They have hired from outside or produced from inside a trusted administrative staff, expert in this kind of speculation, able to dominate market conditions, to lay down contracts, to evaluate commercial risks and to initiate profitable economic operations. The union's essential nature is competitive, not Communist. The union cannot be the instrument for a radical renovation of society, it can provide the proletariat with proficient bureaucrats, technical experts on industrial questions of a general kind, but it cannot be the basis for proletarian power. It offers no possibility of fostering the individual abilities of proletarians which make them capable and worthy of running society; it cannot produce the leadership which will embody the vital forces and rhythm of the progress of Communist society.

Antonio Gramsci, "Soviets in Italy"

[dreamersinthedaylightinspo]

The Carolingian Union is a collection of mortal state, which is recognized as one of the Nine Kingdoms of Faerie. The faerie nations here were considered too small or separated, and could not easily join together even after the Wall's construction formally severed their ties from their mortal counterparts. The Kingdoms of Rask and Montessere, for example, both straddle the Wall as Prythian does, and contain both faerie and mortal lands.

The union contains at least a dozen individually recognized nations and states, as well as twice as many small fiefdoms and city-states. The union was created during the War, as human populations recognized the need to band together to throw off the threat of faeries. Faerie allies who incorporated themselves into the Confederation now enjoy the rights of free travel and trade, easily passing over the Wall. This stipulation is covered in the Treaty of Merovinge was hammered out separately, and binds these separate nations together in a unique international union. More faeries add their names to this stipulation of the Treaty with each passing decade, resulting in the continuous growth of the union.

At least five of the so-called "Mortal Queens" (the descendants of prominent human women who led efforts in the war) make their home in this union and still rule small nations of their own, but the Carolingian Confederation is ruled by a High King and/or Queen, who is nominated and elected to the Free Throne every twenty-five years. The current High King is Carloman, a Raskian prince who served in the legislature, known as the Diet, for twenty-five years.

Human children can spend a lifetime studying and trying to understand the web of Carolingian politics; the union is often volatile and the Diet's politics are subject to the whims of its current leadership, whomever that may be. Small-scale land wars and bids for increased territory are common despite long periods of peace and cooperation between fae- and humankind.

However, there is no denying that the Carolingian Union is on the cutting edge of modern politics. Never before in history have so distinct cultures and kingdoms attempted to work together for a common good. Technology including clockwork and steam-powered tools are a flourishing industry, and recent explosions in art and theater have made local productions into household names around the world. They have centrally located banks which are used to store gold and silver from every part of the known world, and have pioneered such philosophical and ethical concepts as "inalienable rights."

While this is all excellent news for humankind, faeries are largely repelled by these advances in technology and are retreating north to the Wall in large numbers. Fears of resentment and renewed conflict are not yet on the horizon; many humans are even sad to see their long-time friends and allies disappear into the wild forests of the north from which they came.

[cartermagazine]

Today We Honor Oluale Kossola, Renamed Cudjo Lewis Zora Neale Hurston tells the story of Cudjo Lewis, who was born Oluale Kossola in what is now the West African country of Benin in her book “Barracoon: The Story of the Last “Black Cargo.” A member of the Yoruba people, he was only 19 years old when members of the neighboring Dahomian tribe invaded his village, captured him along with others, and marched them to the coast. There, he and about 120 others were sold into slavery, after the “Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves" took effect in 1808 slavery was abolished, and crammed onto the Clotilda, the “last” slave ship to reach the continental United States. The Clotilda brought its captives to Alabama in 1860, just a year before the outbreak of the Civil War. Even though slavery was legal at that time in the U.S., the international slave trade was not, and hadn’t been for over 50 years. Along with many European nations, the U.S. had outlawed the practice in 1808. After being abducted from his home, Lewis was forced onto a ship with strangers. The abductees spent several months together during the treacherous passage to the United States, but were then separated in Alabama to go to different owners. “We very sorry to be parted from one ’nother,” Lewis told Hurston. “We seventy days cross de water from de Affica soil, and now dey part us from one ’nother.” “Derefore we cry. Our grief so heavy look lak we cain stand it. I think maybe I die in my sleep when I dream about my mama.” “We doan know why we be bring ’way from our country to work lak dis,” he told Hurston. “Everybody lookee at us strange. We want to talk wid de udder colored folkses but dey doan know whut we say.” Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered in April 1865, Lewis says that a group of Union soldiers stopped by a boat on which he and other enslaved people were working and told them they were free. He and a group of 31 other freepeople saved up money to buy land near Mobile, which they called Africatown. CARTER™️ Magazine carter-mag.com #wherehistoryandhiphopmeet #historyandhiphop365 #cartermagazine #carter #cudjolewis #blackhistorymonth #blackhistory #history #staywoke https://www.instagram.com/p/CkViP5vuxtp/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[milkboydotnet]

The World is Watching and Must Take Action to Stop the Murders of Working People! Solidarity to the Philippines!

The World is Watching and Must Take Action to Stop the Murders of Working People! Solidarity to the Philippines!

The labor rights situation in the Philippines has become so appalling that even traditional bodies like the International Labour Organization (ILO) are forced to respond. During the 105th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2016, the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) adopted conclusions regarding the application by the Philippines of the ILO Freedom of Association Convention (ILO C087) and “noted with concern the numerous allegations of anti-union violence and the lack of progress in the investigation of many such cases…” and among the recommendations was to “accept a direct contacts mission in 2016 in order to follow up on the foregoing conclusions.” A mission was concluded in February 2017.

But the rights violations continued and did not taper, and during 108th International Labour Conference in June 2019, the CAS noted with concern the numerous allegations of murders of trade unionists and anti-union violence, as well as allegations regarding the lack of investigation in relation to these allegations, and again pushed for a mission to the Philippines for 2020. The High Level Tripartite Mission never transpired during the presidency Rodrigo Duterte, and only after he left the office was the HLTM allowed to proceed. The ILO HLTM is expected to be conducted on January 23-27, 2023.

During the years of continued attacks against workers, different trade unions and workers associations in the Philippines mustered courage, forged tighter ranks, heightened resistance, and systematically gathered information, data and cases on multiple violations and threats to the full enjoyment of the Freedom of Association, including murder of trade union leaders, harassment of workers and red-tagging conducted by State forces. The reports have been the basis for the ILO to include Philippines among the top 20 concern list, while the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) also noted the Philippines as among the top 10 “worst countries for workers” for consecutive years.

With Ferdinand Marcos Jr., son of the former dictator, Ferdinand Marcos Sr., now in power, the enablers and perpetrators of the human rights violations in the Philippines remained in power. The cabal of President Duterte are again in major positions of power, such as Eduardo Año who was recently appointed by President Marcos Jr. as the National Security Adviser.

The reign of terror and impunity of State forces are continuing. The complaint against 17 police personnel who were implicated in the murder of Emmanuel Asuncion on March 7, 2021, alongside eight other activists in the Region IV of the Philippines in what is now known as “Bloody Sunday” has been dismissed. The workers movement have documented 56 cases of murder of trade union leaders and workers, many of whom remains unsolved, without the perpetrators brought to face justice.

The notorious National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) persists on its framework that any campaign and advocacy mounted by working people and civil society for their rights and welfare are terrorists in nature, especially opposition against the destructive Neoliberal policies that have pauperized the working people. With such a framework, even collective bargaining between unions and employers are now treated by the State as part of terrorist plots, with State forces directly meddling and intervening. This has become a boon for employers, and transnational corporations (TNCs) operating their supply chains in the Philippines, who would rather have no collective bargaining at all and keep wages and benefits of their workers to a bare minimum to maximize their profit-taking.

Many countries in Asia-Pacific are reforming their labour laws, including India, Indonesia and Pakistan. Workers in these countries have criticized the changes as pro-business and anti-workers, and increases the precarity of the working people, through greater liberties given to employers to hire-and-fire workers. Those amendments have been met by robust opposition from the workers. To quell any resistance, the State, the elite in cahoots with the TNCs in these countries may very well employ the same practice of the Philippine government. The government of these countries are also known to have strong anti-terror laws and can use the practice of NTF-ELCAC in the Philippines to bring labor rights under the ambit of fighting terror.

Brother and sisters, all working people in the in Asia-Pacific must come together to protect our rights. While we advance our struggles within our national boundaries, we unite with fellow workers everywhere as we recognise the common struggle of workers against capitalist exploitation. Working class solidarity is necessary to fight the onslaught of imperialist neoliberal policies that have exploited the working people for superprofits, plundered the resources of the world, and heaped the most brutal repression against worker’s and people’s. We must take stock of what is happening in the Philippines, and through unity and solidarity, advance the struggle for a better world for all working people!

International League for Peoples’ Struggle – Asia-Pacific January 23, 2023