weekend of October 3 was held training days of the current IS- PSOE headquarters in Ferraz. Already the format has its own limits ... For this very reason I no just telling what happened there. But I intend to launch ideas for opening the debate in the long term.
first opened a panel to discuss the crisis and its causes. The companion Borrell made a great presentation on how the crisis began as it should, but its conclusion (that of a rector of University) suffered from some "silence." First came to say that the crisis caught in "offside" to all economists. Borrell Comrade guess economists would refer to social democracy. As for the Marxist economists were taking the conditions for this crisis for some time. Just cite an article in 2000 [ In the razor's edge , Alan Woods and Ted Grant ]: "In the last decade the power of banks and the monopoly has reached historic levels. The best example of this phenomenon can be seen in the unprecedented increase in the power of banks Central in the last twenty years. The old idea of \u200b\u200bthe reformists and Keynesian capitalism held fixed on the idea that governments can manipulate the economy using instruments such as interest rates. Now all this has changed. Central banks require full independence to control interest rates ...". And later still saying that "the attempt to return to the old, discredited, orthodox policy of balanced budgets and" sound money "has led to additional insoluble contradictions. The shift to monetarism in the eighties led to the deepest recession since World War II in the U.S. and Britain. For these means it is true that inflation has been controlled at least temporarily ... But they have succeeded in destroying a large part of the productive apparatus, with deep cuts in public spending and attacks on living standards, all measures that reduce the market further aggravate the crisis. "
The capitalist accumulation on all from the 80's, has been made on the backs of workers. With the defeat of Stalinism capitalism imperialism embarked on a senile and barbaric, to conquer new markets and to the appropriation of natural resources . But it needed a return to the nineteenth century, with a drop of rights economic and social changes that have led to the emergence of the new sociology to become known as the working poor . And this is what we sometimes forget. But capitalism has not stopped moving under a law that is based on "The profits of the capitalists can only come from unpaid labor of workers . The increase in the organic composition of capital leads inevitably to the fall rate of profit "[Alan Woods ]
What is the alternative? Borrell's companion left for discussion. Is it a return to Keynesianism ? The neoconservative Reagan (President of USA) out of the crisis by military Keynesianism , ie with a strong investment in defense and new technology applied to the military. By this we mean that Keynesianism implies strong state intervention to address inequalities, but also to implement the application and return to consumerism. But this requires political institutions (unions, employers and state) that allow social pacts. This has only been possible when there was Stalinism, which led to the labor movement had a social and economic rights important. But is this possible when there is no "red enemy? Is this possible when it has deregulated market? Is it possible without strong unions? Is it possible with a minimal state, which only serves to maintain the security (private )?....
Another speaker was Jose M ª Zufiazur (former leader of UGT . We talked about the role of "work" and what it has meant a crisis for the same. Companies are no longer large workshops (Fordism), but that have become blurred and flexible, leading to a new type of worker and a new discipline for the worker. We talked about that about 37% of the unemployed are at risk of falling into poverty and school failure is about 32%.
However, we discussed the new ejecting poverty to social exclusion for the unemployed. We spoke of the ideology of capitalism by "neoliberal" by down-regulating the social relations of production has given rise to the figure of the precarious . In short, the vicious capitalism does not want Third World countries with economic and social rights, but it is intended to make the Western work in Third World workers.
Zufiaur Contrary to the proposed three types of alternata: 1. a new model of society , but did not specify what kind of society was thinking. What are the relations of production are proposed? What kind of rights social advocate? 2. Strengthening Labor . But we are not referring to a type of bureaucratic unionism and pacts passing of the excluded or not think about what rights of migrants also are proletarians, but with fewer rights than the natives. Unions Or are we talking about class, democratic and protest ... 3. Cooperation against competitiveness. Unionism must be based on "class solidarity" is to lay the foundations for a new society and that passes through the democratic elements of social relations [empowerment of committees and sections sidicales against bureaucracies, and walk towards business co].
Javier Méndez-Vigo
0 comments:
Post a Comment