Are worker-owned companies an alterative to capitalism?

Louis Proyect
September 29, 2009
This is a follow-up to my review of Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: a Love Story” where I neglected to discuss his proposals for an alternative to capitalism, which boil down to worker-owned firms or cooperatives. He interviews the top guy at the Alvarado Street Bakery in California, whose website describes a cooperative as “an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise”. He also visits a robotics manufacturer in Wisconsin that operates on the same basis.

In an interview on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” radio show, Juan Gonzalez asks a pointed question that gets to the heart of the matter: “Michael, you have obviously amassed a lot in terms of the indictment of capitalism as a system, but some would say the film doesn’t offer much in terms of the alternative.” Moore replies:

I do show in the film some very specific examples of workplace democracy, where a number of companies have decided to go down the road of having the company actually owned by the workers. And when I say “owned,” I’m not talking about some ding-dong stock options that make you feel like you’re an owner, when you’re nowhere near that. But I mean these companies really own it. And I’m not talking about, you know, the hippy-dippy food co-op, and I don’t mean that with any disrespect to the food co-ops who are listening or any hippies that are listening. But I go to an engineering firm in Madison, Wisconsin. These guys look like a bunch of Republicans. I mean, I didn’t ask them how they vote, but they didn’t necessarily look like they were from, you know, my side of the political fence. And here they all are equal owners of this company. The company does $15 million worth of business each year.

I go to this bakery. It’s not a bakery really; it’s a bread factory out in northern California, Alvarado Street Bakery. And they’re all paid. They all share the profits the same. They’re all shared equally, including the CEO. And they vote. They elect, you know, who’s going to be running this and how this is going to function. The average factory worker in this bread factory makes $65,000 to $70,000 a year, which, I point out, is about three times the starting pay of a pilot who works for American Eagle or Delta Connection. And that’s another harrowing scene in the movie, where I interview pilots who are on food stamps—pilots who are on food stamps because of how little they’re paid.

As someone who has paid fairly close attention to the airline industry over the years, I could not help but remember how worker ownership did little to stave off the race to the bottom in what was once a well-paying industry with excellent benefits. On July 7th, 1996 Louis Uchitelle informed his NY Times readers that worker ownership was no obstacle to the kind of downsizing that victimized the workers at Republic Window, whose sit-in was documented by Moore. Uchitelle reported:

Or take Kiwi Airlines, founded in 1992 by former Eastern Airlines pilots. It is 57 percent owned today by its 1,200 employees. But to cut costs, 60 owner-workers were laid off in January, many of them clerks whose jobs had been automated. “If we had done these layoffs earlier, there would have been revolution,” said Robert Kulat, a Kiwi spokesman. “We still had this concept of a happy family and of employees being bigger than the company. But big losses changed that. And people realized that to remain alive, to keep their own jobs, they had to change too.”

Interestingly enough, Uchitelle claimed that a strong union allowed United Airlines, another worker-owned firm, to avoid downsizing but only four years later economic reality caught up with the company, as the January 14, 2000 New York Times reported:

Faced with rising labor and fuel costs, the UAL Corporation, the parent company of United Airlines, said yesterday that its 2000 earnings were likely to be as much as 28 percent below expectations.

United Airlines, the world’s largest carrier, is being plagued by troubles that are common to the industry and by others that are singular to its operation. Jet fuel prices increased about 24 percent last year and United predicted further jumps this year.

Adding to the carnage, several of United’s unions were demanding large wage increases, in part to keep up with competitors and to replace money generated from the company’s expiring stock ownership plan.

“UAL gave a very sobering message yesterday,” said Kevin Murphy, an airlines analyst with Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. “No airline outperforms when you’re negotiating with labor. If United gives big wage boosts to its pilots and mechanics, the other carriers may have to catch up.

In 2001 United Airlines went bankrupt as a result of the impact of 9/11 on travel and rising fuel costs and was subsequently reorganized as a regular corporation. This had nothing to do with whether the company was “democratic” or not. Even if it was the most democratic institution in the world, it could not operate as a benign oasis in a toxic wasteland. Capitalism forces firms to be profitable. If they are not profitable, management takes action to make them more profitable, including slashing wages or laying workers off. The only way to eliminate these practices is to eliminate the profit motive, something that Moore is reluctant to advocate.

It is understandable that Naomi Klein would have referred to the notion of worker owned firms this way in an interview with Moore that appears in the latest Nation Magazine: “The thing that I found most exciting in the film is that you make a very convincing pitch for democratically run workplaces as the alternative to this kind of loot-and-leave capitalism.” Klein, like Moore, has extolled the virtues of worker ownership in her own documentary “The Take”. This was my take on her movie:

In the opening moments of Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein’s documentary about occupied factories in Argentina titled “The Take,” we see Klein being hectored by a rightwing TV host. If she is not for the capitalist system, then what is she *for*. This is obviously is a tough question for autonomists like Klein who resist being pinned down, but she and her partner decided to make an attempt in “The Take.” Despite their best intentions, the film poses more questions than it answers. Ultimately, the film succeeds not as a political statement but as a record of ordinary workers trying to maintain their dignity.

For non-Marxist radicals like Klein, coming up with a model means first of all rejecting the USSR or Cuba which are dismissed as verticalist nightmares at the beginning of the film. The attraction of occupied factories in Argentina is that they are exercises in direct democracy, but do not involve the messy business of government, with its distasteful cops, courts and bureaucracy, etc. Of course, if you do not evaluate such institutions through the prism of class, you will never be able to operate politically on the most basic level. In the final analysis, cops will either support factories run by workers or they will evict them. Class power is the ultimate determinant of that outcome.

The film focuses on the efforts of workers to keep three factories running on a cooperative basis: Forja San Martin, Zanon and Brukman. Although Brukman, a garment shop, has only 58 workers, it is by far the best-known of these experiments. For autonomists, it has achieved the kind of mythic proportions that the St. Petersburg Soviet has for some Marxists. (It should be mentioned that the sectarian Marxist left rallied around Brukman as well, not so much because it was a model but because it was seen as an apocalyptic struggle between society’s two main classes.)

There’s a certain cognitive dissonance at work with Moore’s treatment of cooperatives. If it is a virtual panacea for what ails American workers, it amounts to a rightwing conspiracy when it is advocated as a solution to the health care crisis by Obama’s adversaries (of course, Obama is open to the idea himself.) If you go to Moore’s website, you will find an article by Robert Reich that makes a rather effective case against health insurance cooperatives: “Don’t accept Kent Conrad’s ersatz public option masquerading as a ‘healthcare cooperative.’ Cooperatives won’t have the authority, scale, or leverage to negotiate low prices and keep private insurers honest.” The same thing applies to outfits like the Alvarado Street Bakery in California or the robotics plant in Wisconsin. They lack the power to transform the American economy, just as health insurance coops would lack the power to safeguard the health of American workers. They would be nothing but tokens in a vast system operating on the basis of profit

晚期資本主義時代的新基本矛盾

曼德爾
1992


美國貿易赤字升到138億元的消息，觸發華爾街股市在4月14日再暴跌101點。自從去年10月股市崩潰以來，即使是金融市場的微小波動，也足以激起人們拿1929至30年的情況作比較。

但即使美元繼續下跌、銀行倒閉、債務達到天文數字、生產過剩和失業嚴重，資產階級評論家仍堅持稱在國際商業的「真實」世界內，一切良好。真正的情況是怎樣的呢？只是「紙上的危機」，與實際工業生產和增長沒有關係嗎？本文描述現時資本主義的危機，指出所有目前的經濟指標，都顯示在最近將來會出現普遍的國際性衰退。

國際資本主義經濟在86年上半年經歷了小型衰退，除了英國之外。在87年1月，西德的生產比一年前下降了3%。美國則下降1%。但這次衰退並沒有加深。86年底的生產又再陸續上升，並持續到87年底（見表一）

表一 1890-1986年原料價格指數

加拿大	+8.8%	（11月至11月）
法国	+4.0%	（11月至11月）
西德	+2.0%	（12月至12月）
意大利	+3.6%	（10月至10月）
日本	+8.6%	（12月至12月）
西班牙	+8.9%	（11月至11月）
英国	+4.9%	（12月至12月）
美国	+5.1%	（12月至12月）

只因為裡根政府繼續推行凱因斯政策，推行龐大的預算赤字，才制止了86年的小型衰退。它將更多商品從日本、西德、南朝鮮、台灣、巴西等國家及地區吸收到美國國內市場，亦因此令美國貿易赤字惡化，令美元加劇下跌。這也解釋了股市、地產、藝術品的瘋狂投機。

股市、地產瘋狂投機的原因
87年10月19日的股市崩潰，標誌著這個趨勢的轉折點。它預示了普遍衰退的來臨，越延遲越嚴重。

股市崩潰的直接原因是87年全年的投機，亦即是沒有投入生產的金融資本過剩。龐大的資金尋找資產出路。由於原料相對過剩，價錢很低，所以引不起投機者的興趣。其他的「投資」便被投機者搶購，令價格飛漲。

美國紐約道瓊斯指數從84年初800點，升到87年3月的2400點，到8月更高達2700點。英國金融時報指數從82年底的400點升到87年3月的1500點。日本股票也從84年初的800點水平，升到87年3月的1900點水平。對美國和較少程度上對日本和英國股票的國際需求，是股價飛漲的重要因素之一。87年上半年，外國購買了超過180億美元的美國股票，包括來自日本的75億美元、英國40億、法國18億、拉丁美洲接近10億。股價飛漲，股票的息率卻低得可憐。日本股票年息低至1.5%；美國股票年息不到2.5%，美國的股息扣除通貨膨脹率後，比日本的更低。在這些情況下，離算賬的日子已不遠了。

在巴黎、倫敦、紐約等地已很瘋狂的地產投機，在東京更為驚人：新宿區在兩年內從每平方公尺24萬港幣漲至60萬港幣，銀座區更達到177萬港元一平方公尺！120平方公尺的住宅月租達5萬港元！銀行貸款有10%是借給地產的。

銀行資金的兩個結構性因素，推動了這種狂熱。首先，金融交易額的異常的增加（全球四個主要外匯市場的全年交易額達到60萬億美元，但全球貿易額每年只是2萬億美元。因此，絕大部份的外匯交易是投機性的），導致財務經理的非專業化、無能和犯錯，其年薪卻高達數百萬美元。此外，不擇手段迅速發財的意識和道德觀，推動大規模的欺詐，例如美國的內幕交易案；欺詐又刺激投機，反過來又刺激更多欺詐和罪惡。

87年的瘋狂股市和地產投機，主要是由於資本主義世界的資金過剩，後者卻根源於更深刻的結構性原因：標誌著從70年代開始的「衰退長波」的不斷的資本過度積累。過度的積累，表示每年利潤所形成的資本不再找到能夠保證取得平均利潤的投資機會。這些資本不再作生產性投資，助長經濟的不景氣，特別是就業人數的下降，轉過來又加劇資本的過度積累，成為游資，走向投機。

投機的基本原因是商品生產過剩和剩餘生產能力，它們阻礙生產性投資。即使是在79年的工業週期的高點，美國平均的過剩生產能力也高達25%。從79年到84、85年的另一個高點，過剩生產能力增加到33%。在82年的衰退期間，過剩生產能力更高達41%。

這個情況解釋了金融投機活動並不限於純粹的投機者；龐大的工業托拉斯也普遍參與投機。尤其是在日本，從83年到87年，工業企業的股市交易增加5倍有多，甚至主要的跨國公司的利潤也有不少部份來自金融活動，例如日立的比例是45%，信興電業60%。但從這點作結論，說帝國主義國家出現「非工業化」，尚言之過早。從這意義看，股災客觀上開始令資產階級重新調配，不利於銀行和純金融部門而有利於傳統的工業金融資本。

股災的連鎖打擊
資本主義的鎖鏈首先在最弱的環節——股市——斷裂。這個斷裂差不多自動導致其他斷裂。目前最受威脅的是經紀行和其他財務公司；較弱的銀行；國家的資金周轉（不僅是欠債較多的第三世界國家）；一些國家的社會保障制度；以及一些受重創的跨國公司。所有這些危機的連鎖反應，令整個國際信貸和貨幣制度崩潰的危機增加。

不少主要經紀行在股災中損失數千萬美元。很多銀行被股災和長期不景氣（例如農業危機、油價下跌、第三世界的壞賬等）嚴重打擊。在美國，87年有200家銀行倒閉；儲蓄銀行普遍虧損，估計總數達45億美元；86年的奧克拉荷馬第一國民銀行的倒閉，是74年以來最大的銀行倒閉。

比這些中型銀行的情況更為嚴重的是美國的主要銀行之一——曾經是全球最大的「美國銀行」的困境，它要靠日本資本大規模援助才挽救過來。

美國銀行系統的困難比其他國家更為人所知，但其他帝國主義國家的銀行的問題也逐漸洩露出來。加拿大6家主要銀行之中，有5家是虧蝕的。瑞典三大主要銀行在股災中損失超過1億美元，挪威的主要銀行更損失2億美元。英國米特蘭銀行87年虧損估計達9億美元，要靠香港匯豐銀行收購來渡過難關。

澳洲股災對非金融公司的打擊最大。三個最大的托拉斯企業受損超過5億美元。雖然這只是賬面上的損失。但當這些公司的資產值下降時，它們的借款能力便相應減少，影響投資和其他活動。澳洲首富許雅葛的企業的價值，在幾天之內從57億美元跌至12億美元。

第三世界國家無力償還的債務，構成這幅灰暗的圖畫。這些國家的債據在市場上正以五折的價格出讓。如果這些債據都只值五折，美國大通銀行便會失去一半資產，化學銀行會失去全部資產。此外，美國各大銀行借作收購行動等的高風險的貸款，佔了銀行很高資產的比例，例如占法爾高銀行超過100%的資產、英國銀行71%、化學銀行45%、大通銀行21%、萬國寶通銀行20%。

股市的崩潰是由美國利率增加而觸發的；七大國羅浮宮協議加息的目的是阻止美元下跌。利率增加幾乎一定導致股價下跌，因為股票價格客觀上是以股票利息與利率作比較、競爭。但股價下跌的幅度與利率的增加完全不成比例：華爾街在股災後的最低點與87年最高點比較，跌了28%，倫敦跌了33%，西德35%，澳洲41%，香港45%。股市崩潰當日，紐約股票市場差點解體。

美國和日本政府立即大規模介入，降低利率，增加貨幣供應，以避免經紀行和財務機構因現金周轉問題而被迫拋售股票。

兩難的挽救措施
但在試圖挽救危機時，美國政府卻同時加劇了結構性的金融危機。要填補美國龐大貿易赤字，需要外國資金大量和不斷湧入。由於美國匯率下跌和通貨膨脹率較外國高，外國資本家更加不願借錢給美國，除非美國利率在8厘至9厘以上。如果資金停止注入美國，美國便不能支付外債和短期商業債務和票據。事實上，美國的外匯儲備已不足以支付每年1500億美元的貿易赤字。

因此，我們正目睹一場巨大賭博，兩方面的參加者都面對兩難局面。美國繼續打出令美元下跌的牌，以重新取得貿易優勢，刺激出口，減少進口，因此會促成日本、西德、南朝鮮、台灣、巴西等國家及地區的衰退；但如果因此而造成美元崩潰，在整個資本主義經濟內造成極嚴重的金融和經濟危機、通貨膨脹和美國出口下跌，則美國經濟亦會受嚴重衰退打擊。如果美國以提高利率來穩定美元，卻會立即觸發國內衰退。

另一方面，假如西德和日本要保衛美元匯率（亦保衛本國貨幣的穩定性），只有大規模增加購買美元，而買來的美元卻越來越貶值，導致重大損失。日本估計擁有的2000億美元資產，一年內貶值一半。但這些國家讓美元自由下跌，它們的貨品便會不夠受美國貨競爭，加劇出口的下降，導致衰退，同時它們現有的美元資產便會更貶值。

總衰退危機加深
87年10月19日以來的連鎖反應的危機——股市危機、財務公司危機、銀行危機、美元危機、國際貨幣制度的機能失調、第二次股市崩潰的威脅——加劇了資本主義經濟在88年走向總衰退的傾向。

事實上，一些經濟學者說衰退在美國已經開始，因為連續7個月的「週期指標」已指向下跌。汽車銷量在87年已下跌15%；新建樓宇的數目下降；工業生產即使未下跌，但不少產品已變為存貨；零售水平也在下降。

有經濟學者指出美國的「廉價金錢」和低利率政策的不良影響：會導致不斷的貨幣和金融市場危機，最後會導致利率提升到觸發衰退的水平。1月25日的《國際先鋒論壇報》一篇文章標題是《華爾街等待衰退的來臨》，開始便指出問題不是衰退是否來臨，而是什麼時候來；它說，有些觀察家認為是89年而不是88年。

87年底，33名著名資本主義經濟學家發表聲明，提議主要資本主義國家統治者聯合行動，以避免嚴重的經濟危機。他們首先呼籲美國實行緊縮政策，消減國內消費，消除貿易赤字和預算赤字。他們卻似乎沒有預見到這個政策會大大增加美國的失業，短期內造成美國衰退。

最樂觀的經濟學者希望美國經濟能矇混過關，悲觀的則預測嚴重的衰退。基本的原因，明顯地不是由於股市的崩潰或貨幣危機，而是生產能力的增長（逐漸以機器代替活的勞動）與市場（「最終消費者」的購買力）的相對停滯兩者之間的不平衡。它導致平均利潤率下降和資本過度積累。對債務的停頓和瘋狂的投機，加劇這些矛盾，加強走下坡的動力。

在股災之後，收購行動仍然繼續，甚至受到低股價的鼓勵。銀行繼續毫無警戒地向收購行動提供巨額貸款，而不理會以往的教訓。第二次股市崩潰的陰影已隱現。它會否在東京開始呢？不少啟示指出這個可能性。

日本經濟危機四伏
日本股市很脆弱，因為股票價格與利息的比例高得不合理。在上次股災中，日本只是下跌10%左右，並沒有對股價作適當調整。

此外，日本出口數量正在收縮，因為日元價高、美元價跌和南朝鮮、台灣和香港的工業有更大的競爭。日本資產階級正嘗試加強資本輸出和擴充國內市場，特別是房屋市場，以補償出口的下跌。為了避免企業利潤減少，擴充國內市場的做法首先是增加公共開支，即增加已過分膨脹的公共債務。日本的公共債務其實相對地比美國的還大，86年已達到國民總產值的90.9%，而美國是52.4%。美國的預算赤字是國民總產值的3.4%，日本達到4.2%。這個因素加劇了日本經濟現時的脆弱性。

這問題更因為日本工業在世界市場上的優勢已停滯或受損而變得更嚴重。日本汽車占世界出口的比例從80年開始不再上升，甚至稍為下降。彩色電視機出口在84年見頂。從現在到90年，製造業和煤礦業受國外競爭打擊，將會消減9萬個職位。日本整套工廠的出口，從82年到86年下降了76%。

令日本資本主義憂慮的，是日本的活動重心急劇轉到「紙面上的經濟」。在87年，日本成為世界最大的資本輸出國，但超過一半的輸出集中在金融業和地產上。現時主要支撐日本經濟上揚的部門，是化學品、房屋建築、廣告和「休閒工業」。

美國衰失支配地位
美元的下跌加劇了美國的金融至尊地位的下降。世界十大銀行主要是日本資本的，美國只有兩家。美國已在國際上成為負債國，它的外債今天已達到5000億美元，而且以每年1000到1500億的可怕速度增加，在幾年內，不難超過第三世界國家負債的總和。

在美國喪失貨幣和金融支配地位的背後，是美國工業和科技支配地位明顯地急劇地下降。美國占世界出口的比例從81年的20%跌到86年的13.8%；同時，進口占美國國內市場的比例急劇上升，較突出的有：鋼鐵占15.9%、鋁22.7%、電子零件18.1%、信息技術（電腦等）18.7%、機械工具40%、紡織機器48.8%、鞋62.5%、電視機和收音機63.8%（以上為86年數字）。

美國帝國主義當然不會接受「非工業化」的。依賴進口鞋可以忍受，但依賴重要核子飛彈或電子零件是不可忍的，這正是美國政府否決日本富士收購美國快捷半導體托拉斯，以及提供巨額政府津貼以發展半導體技術的原因。但美國的地位已嚴重受損。例如全球6個主要半導體生產者之中，日本的NEC、日立和東芝佔了頭三名，美國合資的摩托羅拉排第四，美國的德州儀器排第五。在電訊工業中，美國只佔全球十大企業的兩家半。在飛機工業，美國波音公司受到歐洲的空中巴士公司重大挑戰。

美國帝國主義要求「重新工業化」，特別是希望藉美元下跌幫助出口，其背後原因是生產性投資嚴重缺乏。在82年，日本的工業投資率比美國高3倍。雖然美國工業近年來做出努力，但生產力的差距仍在擴大。從80年到86年，各大國的勞動生產率的平均增長率分別為：日本5.6%，英國4.7%，法國4%，美國3.4%，西德3.3%，其中英國生產力的增加主要是由相對地消減工資而取得的。在87年，如以西德的工資成本為100點計，那麼，美國為76，日本75，法國68，英國則為53。如以西德的一小時勞動生產出來的價值為100點計，美國為90，日本83，法國75，英國54。

正如以往每個「不景氣長波」時期一樣，國際資本主義經濟現時的特點是：在過去占支配地位的帝國主義強國衰落之後，並沒有出現新的帝國主義強國來取代它的地位。正因為這個原故，美元的地位並沒有被日元或歐洲貨幣單位所取代（估計各資本主義國家86年的全部外匯儲備中約有42%是黃金，50%是美元，8%是其他貨幣，其中日元只佔1%），而各國政府呼籲全球共同行動的努力只會是白費的。

對第三世界的影響
美國「經濟調整」對第三世界國家經濟的影響，大概可以分為三類國家來看。

首先，是有貿易盈餘的石油輸出國組織國家，例如沙特阿拉伯、科威特等。這些國家受油價下跌和美元下跌的雙重影響，令他們的資產和儲備大幅貶值。但問題仍未到群眾消費水平或工業生產下降的地步。

其次，是半工業化的國家及地區，如南朝鮮、巴西、台灣、墨西哥、新加坡、香港等。在87年，它們的工業生產上揚，主要由於往美國的出口不斷擴大。美元下跌和美國衰退的影響，限制它們的出口，觸發它們也會衰退，日本市場不夠大，所以不足以代替美國市場或抵消衰退影響。

還有其他第三世界國家，它們特別受國際貨幣基金會強迫實施的調整政策影響，造成災難性的非工業化和貧困化。大量資源從貧窮國家轉移到富裕國家去（從80到86年，總共1450億美元從拉丁美洲轉移到帝國主義國家），而帝國主義國家在第三世界國家的市場亦劇烈萎縮。非工業和貧窮化在拉丁美洲特別顯著。從80年到86年，智利平均國民產值下跌64%、墨西哥12%、阿根廷14.2%、委內瑞拉19%、玻利維亞27%。工人、貧農、失業和半失業者的購買力下降更為嚴重。墨西哥工資的購買力從80年到87年下降了一半，巴西則介乎37%到55%。

美元的下跌，的確減輕了它們的債務和利息（利率也有下跌），但只是由於第三世界國家部份資源是出口到歐洲、日本等國。然而，由於第三世界國家的經濟越來越「美元化」（譯按：指經濟依賴美元運行而不再受本國貨幣支配），所以這些得益被抵消了。

國際資本主義經濟現在經歷著兩個平面的分化。一方面是在帝國主義之間（雖然台灣也包括在內），美元兌其他貨幣急劇貶值；另一方面是在第三世界平面，其本國貨幣受通貨膨脹更大打擊，連兌美元也告貶值。

此外，還有不利於第三世界的進口交換比率的持續下降所造成的影響（從84年到86年，原料的價格下跌了四份之一）。它迫使第三世界輸出更多資源，是利率下降和美元貶值所補償不了的。另外還有第三世界有產階級不斷將資金調離國外的影響。

所有這些因素，令第三世界的債務不斷增加，儘管人民做出驚人的犧牲，經濟也非工業化。第三世界的長期債務從84年的7140億美元，增加到88年的9800億美元，短期債務則保持在84年的1630億美元，到88年的1550億美元的水平。

對半工業化國家來說，支付債務利息和還本的影響也不少。由於它們的出口主要是靠減低工資成本，尤其是透過通貨膨脹，所以，隨著出口增加，內部市場也同時縮減。結果是這些國家也出現大規模的生產能力過剩。例如，巴西的「資本」貨物（機器）的生產設備使用率從82年的64.1%跌至84年的54.9%在87年又回復到62.9%。

工人運動與保護主義
不久將會來臨的新的總衰退，首先會造成新一輪的失業。單是在帝國主義國家內，現在約有4千萬人失業（日本和美國的真正失業數字是被嚴重低估的，美國現時的真正失業率大約是10%）；在未來危機之中，這個失業人數可能達到4500萬或更多。

面對著購買力下降和社會保障制度受威脅的情況，很多帝國主義國家的工會戰略受到恐懼失業的影響。對抗消減職位的戰略有兩種。有些工會集中爭取大量消減每週的工作小時；其他則受保護主義的誘惑。後者只是階級合作代替國際無產階級團結的變種，不是團結所有國家的工人爭取35小時或32小時工作周，而是聯合自己的老闆來對付其他國家的工人及其職位。這就是將失業輸出的政策，它對國際工人階級的災難後果，在1929年到39年已可深刻體驗。美國的工會官僚是最大程度上臣服於這政策的誘惑的。

這種反應和它在某些工人階級之中產生共鳴的客觀基礎，是帝國主義國家的工人與半工業化國家的工人的巨大工資差距。以目前匯率比較，是十比一之巨。當資本家將生產轉移到低工資國家時（實際的轉移比想像中少得多），人們以為資本家「背叛了本國工業」。資本家的直接反應是：讓我們一同在本國降低工資和限制外國貨物入口（即增加消費品價格，等於將實際工資降低更多）。

工會接受這個理由後，便會跌進災難中，工資逐步降低（美國的每週實際工資從73年的201美元降至87年的167元），直到等於半工業化國家的工資水平為止；「兩階梯社會」（在法國，5個工人之中1個是沒有「真正」工作的）和臨時工作將工人的社會保障消減；不斷侵蝕就業數目。

在任何國家，都可以找到比其工資更低的國家，作為消減工資和加強保護主義的理由。從工人的角度來看，這個政策特別有害，因為它摧毀工作職位：雖然它增加利潤，但同時卻減少營養額，因為工資被消減。如果沒有利潤上升和營業同時增加，正如在保護主義政策之下，則資本主義便不能持續增長。事實上，所有在工會接受消減工資以「保衛職位」的國家內，就業人數都繼續下降。

因此，必須嚴拒保護主義和任何「為保衛職位而作必要犧牲」的做法；必須呼籲所有國家的工人共同行動，爭取劇減每週工作小時而不減工資，以及工會共同行動提高半工業化國家的令工人飢餓的工資。這些國家的民族資本家所謂提高工資會阻止工業化，是與帝國主義國家的保護主義論調同樣不能接受的。事實上，半工業化國家更高的工資會刺激工業化，擴展內部市場和發展更高級的經濟模式。

資本主義新的基本矛盾
導致股票崩潰和將會帶來1970年代以來第三次總衰退的巨大的不平衡，顯示了「晚期資本主義」在「不景氣長波」的新的基本矛盾。這些矛盾在上一階段的增長時期已顯露了出來。

龐大的債務與資本主義制度的生存已經結構性地連結起來；單是美元債務現已達到800萬億至850萬億美元的天文數字！如果不是不斷製造巨大債務的話，便不能保證商品的出路、企業的擴展或支持公共開支。

無疑，現在出現了過剩的流動資金。積累的債務不合比例地超過了「正常」資本主義積累的需要。因此「虛假」資本和部份「紙上的經濟」將會被摧毀，部分債務會透過破產或者協議而撤除。但即使在衰退之後，債務仍會存在。

因此，生產積累的「正常化」將會極之困難或不可能。軍備生產經濟將會在病態資本主義經濟之中起著更大的商品出路的作用，儘管有各種東、西方裁軍協議。新的利潤率受債務的施累，仍將會是升得很慢和不足的。

國際資本主義經濟將不會有類似1948/73年的擴展時期，只要工人階級和一連串重要國家的反帝國主義運動沒有被嚴重挫敗而造成剩餘價值率的重大提升的話。在可見的將來，這個情況暫不會出現。

大部分債務是私人債務。同時，在私人手中和官方外匯儲備內的資本的比例，突然完全倒轉了。在1958年，十大帝國主義國家的中央銀行比私人資本家多擁有5倍的外匯儲備。在86年，私人資本家的流動或半流動資金，比中央銀行的外匯儲備（不計黃金）多十倍。

包括美國在內的民族國家的削弱甚至癱瘓，反映了這個情況，也反映了超越任何國家控制的跨國托拉斯的興起。「國家干預政策」的式微，只是反映了新的現實，但也令人誤以為市場會恢復平衡，滿足資本的需要。

87年10月的股災之後，人們對市場再也沒有信心了，轉而要求有效的政府的行動。但在各個互相競爭不休的國家之間，是沒有可能聯合行動的，況且它們相比私人資本，已越來越弱。在資本主義制度之內，不可能有一個世界國家或「最終的貸款者」。這是籠罩著地球的一個新的致命威脅。

Battered Labour Movement Needs to Agitate Like It's 1944

John F. Conway
Planet S

John Conway teaches at the University of Regina. This article is originally appeared in Planet S, a local magazine published in Regina, Canada

"Democracy leads the struggle of the working class not only for better terms for the sale of labour power, but for the abolition of the social system that compels the propertyless to sell themselves to the rich…Trade unionist politics of the working class is precisely bourgeois politics of the working class." — V. I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

Lenin's famous booklet, What Is To Be Done?, is considered the blueprint for his successful leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 in Russia. He was writing in 1902 and the working class was on the rise. From the mid-1800s to the 1940s the working classes of the advanced capitalist nations engaged in two struggles. One was the narrow economic battle for collective bargaining rights to improve the terms and conditions of work — which led to the trade union movement. The other was the general political campaign for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist society — which led to communist, socialist and social democratic political parties.

What Lenin consistently argued — as Marx had, and as every militant political leader of the working class continued to argue to the present day — was that the working class had to remain keenly aware that the economic fight within capitalism through trade unions, though immensely important, must never be allowed to divert the working class from the general struggle for socialism.

Socialism was never achieved in the advanced capitalist societies. The socialist victory in industrially backward Russia became so distorted under Stalin, after both the death of Lenin and Trotsky's purge and murder, that it tended to discredit the promise of socialism for many. Nevertheless, great gains were made as the capitalist ruling classes embraced the welfare state — if only to prevent the victory of working class political parties. The construction of the welfare state accelerated after the Great Depression and World War II, largely because working class parties either won power or came very close to winning power in the industrial world: the victories of the Labour Party in 1945 in Great Britain and of the CCF in Saskatchewan in 1944; the near victories of the Communist Parties of France and Italy after the war; the rise to power throughout western Europe of social democratic parties.

Add to this the rise of the Soviet Union as an international contender for ideological support for socialism and against capitalism as an economic system, and the pace of the reform of capitalism was astonishing from 1945 to 1980.

Yet Capitalist ideological hegemony, and political and economic power, remained dominant in the western, industrialized world. When the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 and turned to capitalism, and the Chinese revolution embraced capitalism to become the industrial workshop of the now capitalist world, socialism was dead as a viable alternative.

As you look around you today, the things that you take for granted as part of our good life were won by the political struggles of the working class and its allies: free health care; free K to 12 public education; minimum wages; labour standards; the health and safety regulation of work places; workers' compensation; employment insurance; the Canada Pension plan — the list goes on and on. Each of these gains was first proposed and then fought for by the working class and its organizations — the trade unions and the political parties the working class founded or helped to found.

Even our democratic system was won only after long and bitter, sometimes bloody, struggles in which the working classes played the central role. When the capitalist democratic revolutions overthrew aristocratic tyranny in the 18th and 19th centuries (with the mass support of an armed working class), they established a democracy of the propertied. Only men with property of a certain value could vote.

The agitations in Great Britain leading to the Reform Act of 1832 — agitations which came very close to a general insurrection — reluctantly added men who rented property of a certain value as also eligible to vote: this meant that one in seven men could vote. Further agitations led to the Reform Act of 1867 which extended the vote to all male householders. Universal suffrage for men in Great Britain was not won until 1918, when all men of 21 got the vote. True universal suffrage was achieved in 1928 when all men and women of 21 got the vote. Canada largely followed Great Britain on the suffrage issue. True universal suffrage was won in Canada in 1960 when all aboriginals under treaty were finally granted the franchise.

The historical record is clear. Democracy was never given freely by the capitalist ruling classes; it had to be taken from them, just as all other reforms had to be taken by struggle.

Beginning in the 1980s, and accelerating after the fall of the Soviet Union, the international capitalist ruling classes again dominated the world as they had in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. The reformist mask of capitalism was discarded, and a vicious neo-liberal "take-back" campaign began. The era of neo-liberal globalization was proclaimed as the justification for a relentless attack on the welfare state and the trade unions — a relentless attack on the working classes of the world.

As technology advanced, factories in high wage areas were closed and redistributed around the globe to low wage areas. Unions were faced with massive layoffs, and contract demands from employers included a whole variety of concessions to cheapen the costs of labour in order to achieve global competitiveness. Unions were compelled to take wage cuts, to accept benefit reductions or eliminations, to accept two-tier wage and benefit packages (one "grandfathering" existing workers with existing wages and benefits, the other for new hires with lower wages and fewer benefits).

Besides this attack on trade unions, capitalist political parties (which now included the formerly pro-labour social democratic parties) proclaimed that the new era of global capitalist competitiveness demanded massive cuts to the welfare state.

This campaign against the trade unions and the welfare state has been going on for over 25 years now, and continues to get worse and worse as the numbers of broken unions and discarded social programs mount each day.

Canada's working class is on the ropes. Its major institutions — the trade unions — are reeling from successive defeats. The number of union members in Canada is in serious decline, from 35 per cent in the 1980s to 28 per cent today. The Canadian Auto Workers — Canada's largest, most successful and most militant union — is in a state of collapse as cuts in the auto industry force it to its knees. The CAW, which denounced concession bargaining and proclaimed it would never, ever go down that road, has now fully embraced concession bargaining and two-tier contracts in the name of the "investment competitiveness" of its bosses.

These are dark days for the trade union movement, days of defeat, concessions, and cap-in-hand pleas to the bosses. If the trade union movement continues down this road, it will only get worse — the concessions demanded by capitalism will never end until the working class is powerless and on its knees.

The political clout of the working class in Canada is at its lowest ebb since prior to the Great Depression. The NDP has bought into neo-liberal ideological hegemony, and has essentially become just another capitalist political party. Unorganized workers feel less and less sympathy for trade unions desperately trying to salvage their entitlements while leaving the unorganized to their fate. Public sympathy for unions is very low since unions appear only concerned about the narrow economic interests of their existing members.

What should the working class and its last remaining institution — the trade unions — do at this juncture?

Perhaps the trade unions should learn from history. What did trade unions do during the Great Depression, the last time capitalists tried to use an economic crisis to crush the modest gains the working class had made? The only power of the working class is its own self-organization. And that is what the trade unions and socialist activists did in the 1930s — they commenced a massive organizing drive of the unorganized; they fought strikes over demanded concessions; they occupied closed factories in solidarity with laid-off workers; they organized the unemployed and the poor; and they produced that great slogan of solidarity — "an injury to one is an injury to all," and actually acted on it.

Today unions are not doing much of this. They say they want to do it, they pass resolutions and make speeches about doing it, but they are not acting. As they accept concessions involving two tiers, they are fracturing their own internal solidarity. As they ignore the plight — except for pious, self-congratulatory resolutions passed at conventions — of the unorganized and the poor, they fracture the solidarity of the class as a whole.

The only way the working class ever obtained any effective power was through mass self-organization.

That was true in 1850, and it is even more true in 2008.

World's Labor Federations React to Financial Crisis

--- with Proposals from Re-regulation to Socialism
Dan La Botz

[Dan La Botz is a Cincinnati-based teacher, writer, and activist. He is the author of Rank-and-File Rebellion: Teamsters for a Democratic Union (1990), Mask of Democracy: Labor Suppression in Mexico Today (1992), and Democracy in Mexico: Peasant Rebellion and Political Reform (1995), Made in Indonesia: Indonesian Workers Since Suharto (2001) and the editor of Mexican Labor News & Analysis, a monthly collaboration of the Mexico City-based Authentic Labor Front (FAT), the Pittsburgh-based United Electrical Workers (UE), and the Resource Center of the Americas. His writing has also appeared in Against the Current, Labor Notes, and Monthly Review among other publications. ]

Labor unions around the world have reacted to the financial crisis and the economic recession with words and actions reflecting their national experience, their political ideology, and their leaderships.

Unions and workers have already seen the financial crisis and the growing recession result in the closing of plants and offices, in shorter workweeks, pay cuts, and loss of health benefits and disappearance of billions from pension plans. The International Labor Organization (ILO), a tripartite organization of government, business, and unions, has predicted that unemployment could rise by 20 million, from 190 to 210 million in 2009. ILO Director-General Juan Somavia said that "the number of working poor living on less than a dollar a day could rise by some 40 million -- and those at 2 dollars a day by more than 100 million." Unions in the developing world have also faced a crisis of rising food prices and falling petroleum prices, and all face the deteriorating environmental situation. The major labor federations' responses vary greatly.

While almost all federations have given expression to workers' fear, frustration, and anger, the political programs and calls to action that they put forward differ fundamentally. In all countries surveyed, the labor movement is divided into rival federations, often along ideological lines. No one federation speaks for all workers in any one country. Few unions have suggested a desire to initiate a major struggle over the crisis, and almost none talk about the need to end the capitalist system. Yet virtually all federations, even the most conservative, have felt it necessary to speak out on the damage to working-class lives and the need that the world's governments do something for working people.

We look here at response from around the world from the moderate American, Canadian and European confederations to the more radical Latin Americans and Japanese.

The International Trade Union Confederation
The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), which represents 168 million workers in 155 countries and territories and has 311 national affiliates, called for "reshaping the management of the global economy" to serve workers. The statement reads:

Resolving the financial crisis must go hand in hand with concerted international action to stimulate jobs and growth so that the imminent danger of world recession is averted, and economies are launched on paths of just and sustainable development.

The essential task of regulating financial markets, so as to shut down the option of a return to business as usual and a repetition of today's debacle, must be one component of a wider agenda to reshape the management of the global economy.

The imbalances which have seen real wages fall or stagnate, at the same time as capital has reaped record profits, need to be redressed. Organising and bargaining rights, recognized internationally, must be enforced universally so workers can have real influence over their lives and their futures. The trade agenda, mired in the impasse of the Doha Round, can only move forward once it is based on the imperatives of decent work, development, rights and equity.

Various ITUC/CSI affiliates throughout the world -- and some unions which are not affiliated with the world body -- took stronger or weaker positions.

Chinese Labor
The All China Federation of Trade Union (ACFTU), led by the Chinese Communist Party and closely tied to the Chinese Communist government, held its 15th National Congress in mid-October just as the first waves of the international financial crisis and world recession were beginning to wash up on the shores of Asia. The ACFTU chose Wang Zhaoguo to serve a third term as president of the federation. He also serves as vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the national legislature.

Wang presented a report to the Congress which represents approximately 200 million Chinese workers, the world's largest labor federation, in which he stated that during the last thirty years as China reformed its economy the ACFTU also reformed, innovated, and continued to protect employees' interests.

While he did not touch directly on the current economic issues, Wang said that against the new background of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, the country's trade unions had undertaken the responsibility of becoming mass organizations that unite employees to insure that they enjoy democratic rights. The ACFTU, he said, is also dedicated to promoting social harmony.

Meanwhile the economic downturn hit the industrial province of Guangdong, the center of China's export industry, and, in particular, the toy industry. Half of the province's toy companies were reported to have gone out of business during 2008. While Wang spoke at the Congress in Beijing, thousands of workers protested at closing toy factories in Dongguan in Guangdong province. At the Xixian factory in Shenzhen, which produces for the luxury watch retailer Peace Mark, some 600 workers engaged in a two-day sit-in at the factory, demanding they be paid wages owed them.

Japan's Zenroren
The Japanese Trade Union Confederation, Rengo, "asked Prime Minister Fukuda to cut income tax, increase welfare payment and consider support measures such as distributing the national oil reserve to small and medium enterprises, etc, as emergency measures for people suffering from steep rise of prices of necessities of life." Rengo affiliates and local unions also organized rallies and demonstrations in support of these measures.

The National Confederation of Trade Unions (Zenroren), Japan's more militant labor federation, having experienced a financial crisis in the 1990s does not subscribe to the idea that labor unions should simply accept a tax-funded bailout of the banks. Yoshikazu Odagawa, Secretary General of Zenroren, National Confederation of Trade Unions, issued a statement on behalf of his union that assessed the previous crisis and described the union's response to the current one. It is worth citing at length:

The Japanese economy in 90's experienced 'the lost decade' after the burst of the bubble economy. In this period, the Japanese government repeatedly injected huge amounts of tax money into the banks and initiated mergers and acquisitions among these financial institutions. Other ways of bailing out the banks were to keep low interest rates and to create tax deductions especially for them. As a result, some mega-banks improved. However, the accumulated government deficit has dramatically increased, and they have been attacking the pension and health insurance systems. Big downsizing and government attacks drove the people into grave frustration and poverty.

The banks that had been injected with tax money became crazy for securitizing money and joining the money game, at the same time they became more reluctant to lend money to small business. It is absolutely clear that financial bailout of the 1990's had no impact on improving people's lives.

Japanese banks and security companies are suffering from the current financial crisis, but I want to make it clear from our experience that a taxpayer-funded bailout does not work for people and small businesses.

The current financial crisis that began in the US has had a direct impact on the Japanese working class. Skyrocketing prices of gas, food and raw materials have had a detrimental impact on workers' lives and standards of living, particularly those of low wage workers. There has also been a serious impact on farmers and fisher folk.

Another phenomenon in Japan is deteriorating employment security caused by an increasing number of business bankruptcies. We have also seen increasing bankruptcies among small- and medium-sized enterprises because of bank's reluctance to lend or credit withdrawal. In the first half of 2008, bankruptcies increased by 15%. Japanese auto manufacturers have already begun to reduce 20,000 employees.

Zenroren has set up a special struggle committee to break through the crisis, and campaign for employment security, demanding that the government provide support for workers and small businesses through such measures as tax cuts and financial subsidies. International labor union solidarity must be strengthened to control arrogant speculators and strengthen labor protection. (Translation by Keisuke Fuse.)

The European Trade Union Confederation
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) issued its London Declaration, proclaiming that "The world financial crisis must be a turning point and cause a complete change in the way the financial world works." The ETUC wrote that where public money has been invested into financial institutions there should be "public influence and control so causing a fundamental change in behavior." The European unions demanded "government action to ensure that funds are available for investment in the real economy, helping develop green jobs and technologies and sustainable development."

The ETUC also said that there should be "help provided for workers affected, for householders threatened by eviction, for pensioners threatened with poverty in old age, for entrepreneurs seeking investment capital." The unions aid, "It is not fair that the main beneficiaries [of a rescue] might be those who caused the mess." Finally the ETUC called for an "urgent return of public policy attention to the major issues of income and wage inequalities."

French CGT and Spanish Unions
In France, the labor movement has already been engaged in October in action in defense of state owned property, particularly the Post Office.

The General Confederation of Workers (CGT), a large and important labor federation, reacted to the crisis with a strong rejection of the American financial model which had been imposed on Europe and the world during the last two decades. The CGT called for a new national development strategy that would focus on the development of workers through training, providing workers with job security and new social services, and investment in research and new products. The CGT has also called for tripartite -- government-banks-unions -- conferences focused on the future of the bank workers, who in France are unionized.

Leaders of the General Union of Workers (UGT) and Workers Commissions (CCOO), the two principal labor federations of Spain, called the crisis "grave" and "serious" but also expressed confidence in the labor policies of Spain's president José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of the Socialist Party. Asked by the press if they would call a general strike, they said no because strikes were called to defend workers, not in response to a general economic crisis.

Turkey
Unfortunately there has been little reaction to the crisis so far from the Turkish labor movement, according to Cigdem Cidamli, one of the editors of the labor website Sendika.Org.

On October 21 the Public Employees Trade Unions Confederation (KESK) called the other broader labor organizations, such the People's Houses, organizations based in poor neighborhoods that fight against neoliberalism and for social rights, to discuss a general program to confront the crisis.

"We proposed under the general title of 'defending the right of people to live and to work against the crises' some concrete demands about employment, banks, debts and social rights, but it seems still some time needs to pass for the movement to move in that direction," said Cidlami. "The People's Houses will have a big demo in Ankara on 2nd of November after a foregoing campaign against the AKP government and the crises and we hope this may create some general motivation to act together with others on this direction."

Latin American Unions
The Latin American situation is quite different because of the social and political movements of more than a decade on that continent against the "Washington Consensus" -- the U.S. free trade policy implemented by the U.S., the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. For decades Latin American unions have engaged in general strikes, virtual national uprisings, and political movements that have brought center-left or left-wing governments to power in Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Unions in much of Latin America defend social property and some fight for socialism.

In Brazil, the Confederation of Workers (CUT) helped to create Workers Party (PT) of the country's president Luis Inácio Lula da Silva. The CUT published an anti-crisis program in July that, among other things, calls for "reducing the workday but at the same wages as a way for workers to participate in the increase in the productivity of the corporations." The CUT also calls for an increase in the minimum wage with a cost of living index, government stabilization of food prices, and reduction or removal of taxes from food and other basic commodities. At the same time the CUT calls for tripartite forums to improve industrial competitiveness, examining productive chains to find the bottlenecks.

Venezuela: Unions for Socialism
In Venezuela workers are divided between the more conservative Venezuela Confederation Workers (CTV), the leftist National Union of Workers (UNT), and unions -- left, right, and center -- that remain independent of both. The UNT is a federation which backs President Hugo Chávez and his project for a Socialism for the Twenty-First Century. The UNT also strongly supported Chavez's nationalization of the Bank of Venezuela. Stalin Pérez Burgos, a Coordinator of the UNT, said, "I am always pleased with these proposals from President Chávez, even though I don't completely agree with the way in which it was done. I would have preferred that the bank was expropriated straightway [taken without compensation], but this is good . . . it's a step forward."

Another UNT leader, Orland Chirinos, said, "The government bank can offer more favorable credit to peasants, small producers, and merchants than the private banks, so that it will be preferred by small savers. But this is a limited and reformist measure if it doesn't lead to the expropriation of all of the private banks so that that the government controls 100 percent of the financial system and so that it passes into the hands of workers, peasants, and the people." However, some on the labor left have criticized Chavez's nationalization of the bank because they see it as a measure intended to help save Spain's Santander Bank.

North American Unions
The unions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) area -- Canada, Mexico, and the United States -- have spoken out on the crisis and the damage it will do. The U.S. labor federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, both looked to a new Democratic Party administration headed by Barack Obama to change the country's economic direction and help labor. Mexico's independent unions joined in the National Dialogue adopted some time ago a program to confront the crisis.

President of the AFL-CIO John Sweeney emphasized re-regulation, infrastructure, and healthcare:

The AFL-CIO calls on Congress and the Bush Administration to craft a program for rescuing the mortgage markets that is governed by people devoted to the public interest, that stops the tidal wave of foreclosures, and that provides liquidity, but not an open-ended subsidy, to the institutions that created and benefited from the practices that led to catastrophe. Congress must absolutely ensure that the administration's plan is not just bailing out Wall Street, but also responds to the real pain on Main Street.

The AFL-CIO supports a program for stabilizing money markets and a ban on short selling in the financial services industry. Both are necessary to avoid a panic and the destruction of our financial infrastructure. But these steps are not permanent solutions to our economic and financial problems.

Permanent solutions can be found in the economic program of Barack Obama -- re-regulation of the financial markets, a government focused on creating good jobs by investing in infrastructure and solutions to our energy crisis, health care for all Americans, a government that will protect and improve Americans' retirement security, and a guarantee that American workers can bargain for their fair share of the wealth they create.

Change to Win also links American economic recovery and improvements for workers to the election of Obama. The Change to Win Coalition issued an eight point program which also emphasized infrastructure, green jobs, health care, education, and the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) which would facilitate union organization.

Canadian Labour Congress
Ken Georgetti, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, issued a statement that criticized Canada's corporate elite and the government and called for a re-regulation of the economy.

Canadian working families will bear the brunt of a deep economic crisis caused by a self-serving and arrogant corporate elite, aided and abetted by complacent and do-nothing governments. Our jobs and our pensions are at risk. Today, we demand nothing less than a fundamental change of course.

Immediately after the election, whoever is Prime Minister must develop an emergency national action plan with input from labour. This must include measures to audit, re-regulate and shore up our battered financial system, and concrete measures to save and create jobs through major public investments and changes to unfair trade deals.

Mexico: The Defense of Social Property
Mexico's labor movement too is divided between the conservative Congress of Labor (CT) dominated by the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM) and the two independent alliances, the National Union of Workers (UNT) and the Mexican Union Front (FSM). These latter two alliances unions have been in a years-long battle to try to prevent the privatization of the Mexican Petroleum Company and the electric power generating industries. The Mexican Mine Workers Union (SNTMMRM) has been on strike at the Cananea mine for over a year over health conditions and in defense of the union's autonomy. Mexican teachers in over half the country's states have been on strike for over a month against a government alliance with their own union, the Alliance for Quality Education (ACE), because they believe it will harm their union, teachers, and lead to privatization of education.

The UNT and the FSM, and other groups such as the Authentic Labor Front (FAT) and the Mexican Network Against the Free Trade Agreement (RMALC), joined with many other groups in the National Dialogue. In a conference held on February 4-5, 2005, the Second National Dialogue adopted the Non-Negotiable Minimum Program which may be said to be an anti-economic crisis program.

The Minimum Program gives us an idea of the kinds of issues Mexican unions have been concerned about even before the current crisis. It calls for: 1) no more privatizations; 2) a program of nationalization of industry; 3) national leadership by the manual and intellectual working class, peasants, students, small- and medium-sized business people, together with all who join in this program; 4) a new and qualitatively different democracy, a democracy of the people; 5) self-determination and nonintervention in the affairs of Mexico and other countries, and for no use of violence in international relations; 6) rejection of the terms of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (based on the North American Free Trade Agreement); 7) the economic, political, and cultural integration of Latin America and the Caribbean; 8) a significant reduction of the service of the external debt with the difference going to national development; 9) an end the robbery of the nation which the Fobaproa-lpab [bank rescue program] imposed, guaranteeing public education, protecting workers' rights, and the Social Security [public health and pension] program; 10) reform of Article 27 to protect rural communities, strengthening infrastructure, credit opportunities, technical assistance, and subsidies which would raise productivity.

South African Unions Summer Strikes
Zwelinzima Vavi, General Secretary,Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), spoke out on the crisis on October 22. "Truly this year has been a turning point both for South Africa and for the world economy," he said. "To ensure that workers don't end up paying for the global financial crash will require increased militancy, better organisation and more sophisticated engagement on economic policy both in South Africa and in solidarity with the global trade union movement." Vavi stated that COSATU supported the position of the Alliance Summit of the African National Congress held on October 22. He summarized the position as follows:

First, industrial policy must from now on prioritise employment creation. Joblessness remains extraordinarily high in South Africa, at almost 25% (using the narrow definition), and will likely get worse due to the current crisis. We need to ensure that government has a strategy to ensure that every sector of the economy, including the public services, contributes as much as possible to sustainable employment creation. That requires a huge change in thinking about industrial policy as well as government employment.

Second, the Summit agreed on the need to drive an agrarian development policy that will improve living conditions for the millions of rural poor, especially those who have long been left in the former Bantustans with inadequate infrastructure, services and land. We need to fundamentally rethink the government's current proposals on land reform to achieve this end.

Third, fiscal and monetary policy must support the transformation of the economy, rather than simply giving capital whatever it wants. We realise that government cannot spend recklessly, and that government mustn't let inflation get out of hand. But we also can't put holding the line on spending and inflation above the interests of our people. And that means we need reasonably expansionary policies that support economic growth and increased opportunities.

Fourth, the summit reached important agreements on improving social security and the criminal justice system. In both areas, we need stronger government measures to improve conditions for working people and the poor.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for future development, the Summit called for the creation of a developmental state. The two key steps to achieving that end are streamlining the Cabinet and establishing a planning commission. These systemic changes should help ensure a more consistent and rigorous approach to transformation of our society and the economy. (The full text of the ANC Alliance Summit can be found at: .)

South Africa, one of the largest and most important industrial economies on the African continent, has already been in crisis. Unemployment is officially at 25% but some estimate real unemployment at 40 percent. Rising costs for electricity, food and basic commodities led the to lead a national general strike this past summer. The strike stopped transportation and stopped businesses in many parts of the country, including coal and gold production. While such a general strike against rising prices does not necessarily lead to a clear victory, South Africa's unions clearly registered the workers' objection.

The situation in South Africa is complicated by the fact that the leaders of the ruling African National Congress Party (ANC) are engaged in a power struggle and there is tension between the ANC and COSATU.

With the financial crisis far from over and the recession deepening, the world's labor federation, unions, and workers will be driven to develop more radical programs and to take more serious action to confront the crisis. The crisis will tend to push workers to the left, and the unions will be forced to move with them or lose control of the working class that they claim to represent.