28.2.10

Terremoto en Chile: Mensaje urgente

Andrés Figueroa Cornejo (Desde Santiago de Chile, Chile. Especial para ARGENPRESS.info)

Mientras se escriben estas palabras, en Concepción cientos de personas afectadas brutalmente por el terremoto que remeció a Chile desde la Quinta hasta la Novena Región –incluyendo la Región Metropolitana- abren las bodegas del supermercado Líder (Wal Mart en Chile) para llevarse mercancías de primera necesidad, cajas de leche, sacos de azúcar, pañales, arroz y alimentos en general. Según algunos medios informativos, lo mismo ocurre en la ciudad de Talcahuano.

En Concepción, la muerte y la destrucción de viviendas e infraestructura en los sectores más pobres de la ciudad y sus alrededores han sido la norma dramática. No hay agua, no hay electricidad, no hay combustible, no hay gas y el gobierno central y local han sido incapaces de resolver adecuadamente la distribución de comida y artículos de primera necesidad. Ya llegan las fuerzas policiales. Sin embargo, la gente continúa retirando artículos y alimentos urgentes, toda vez que desde la madrugada del 27 de febrero (0:3:34 hrs.) el caos en uno de los países más sísmicos del planeta ha ocasionado la destrucción de rutas, puentes, estructuras históricas, edificios habitacionales nuevos y antiguos, desabastecimiento, cierre de comercio y cientos de muertos.

El terremoto, que tuvo su epicentro en el centro sur de Chile –el país austral donde Los Andes se hunden en el mar- fue calificado como el sexto más feroz del mundo desde que los movimientos telúricos son medidos científicamente, y alcanzó un promedio de 8,3 º en la escala de Richter . El desastre no tiene precedentes desde la catástrofe de Valdivia, hace 50 años, que combinó un terremoto con un maremoto que hizo desaparecer literalmente a esa ciudad, la cual debió ser reconstruida en un sitio distinto y más distante del mar.

Ahora, al menos la isla Juan Fernández, padeció un tsunami y otras zonas costeras recibieron el castigo del mar que se adentró cientos de metros en territorio urbano. Increíblemente en la plaza de armas de Talcahuano se estacionó una embarcación costera.

Entrevistada la gente en Concepción mientras colectivamente distribuía la mercadería agolpada en las bodegas del principal supermercado de la región, señaló que no tuvieron alternativa ante “la falta de comida, agua, leche para los niños y la subida sinvergüenza de los precios en los pocos comercios abiertos”.

“Piñera se la pasa dando vueltas en helicóptero y no hace ninguna “huevada”. Está puro dando jugo”, señaló una madre mientras trasladaba bolsas de leche.

El gobierno central ha sido incapaz, hasta el momento, de solucionar adecuadamente el suministro de alimentos, energía y cobijo. De hecho, la población más afectada, incluso en Santiago, ha optado por dormir en carpas en las plazas públicas y las calles, o simplemente a la intemperie. Los hospitales públicos, que ya estaban colapsados antes del terremoto, fueron superados con creces y algunos, como el de la ciudad de Talca, simplemente se cerró debido a los daños. El aeropuerto de Santiago, por su parte, protagonizó episodios dantescos, aplastamiento de personas, explosiones de pantallas informativas, y huidas desordenadas de los pasajeros que llegaban y de los que esperaban su vuelo. Ahora está clausurado temporalmente.

El territorio chileno, desde Valparaíso hasta Chiloé, desde el terremoto, ha sufrido al menos 90 réplicas (movimientos telúricos de menor intensidad); hay cientos de desaparecidos, gente bajo los escombros, y el número de fallecidos aumenta oficialmente en tanto pasan las horas.

Quien escribe esta nota urgente tuvo la oportunidad de observar el cielo enrarecido de Santiago durante los tres largos minutos que duró el terremoto en la capital del país (en Concepción se prolongó por 27 minutos). La atmósfera de colores asombrosos auguraban inmediatamente una tragedia de proporciones todavía incuantificables. Lo cierto es que, como es habitualmente ocurrente en Chile, el pueblo trabajador y los pobres son las víctimas principales de la devastación. De golpe y con violencia indescriptible, la naturaleza –contra toda propaganda- recuerda que Chile continúa siendo un país profundamente empobrecido, tercermundista, y muy lejos del desarrollo cacareado interesadamente por los pocos dueños de todo.


Foto: Chile, Terremoto - La presidenta Michelle Bachelet, visitó la zona afectada en el epicentro del terremoto. Concepción. / Autor: Alex Ibáñez - Presidencia Chile

Déficit presupuestario e internacionalización del capital en la teoría marxista


Hemos traducido este texto que Ernest Mandel, uno de los economistas marxistas más importante de la segunda mitad del siglo XX, publicó en el periódico de la sección belga de la IV Internacional, La Gauche, en su número n°14, el 12 de agosto de 1992, tres años antes de su muerte. Un artículo que, pasados ya casi 20 años, mantiene una increíble actualidad.

«Para que el déficit presupuestario no genere inflación antes de que se alcance el pleno empleo, es necesario que los impuestos directos aumenten en la misma proporción que las rentas. Pero la burguesía prefiere suscribir deuda pública a pagar impuestos: la deuda paga dividendos, los impuestos no. El fraude fiscal es un fenómeno generalizado en la sociedad burguesa del siglo XX. Por ello, el déficit presupuestario va acompañado prácticamente siempre de un crecimiento de la deuda pública.»

«Ante el ascenso de las multinacionales, el estado-nación ha dejado de ser un instrumento económico adecuado para la burguesía. Pero sigue necesitándolo para auto-defenderse. Necesita al estado para defender sus intereses particulares frente a los competidores extranjeros. Necesita el estado para amortiguar los choques de las crisis económicas y sociales. Necesita el estado para reprimir en caso de crisis socio-económicas explosivas. En la medida en que el estado nación le es menos útil, tiende a sustituirlo por instituciones supranacionales. Pero para que estas adquieran funciones comparables a las estatales, hay que superar importantes obstáculos políticos, culturales, ideológicos. Y acaba siendo mucho más complicado que lo previsto inicialmente.»

«Ante la internacionalización creciente del capital y del poder de las multinacionales no hay más que dos estrategias posibles para los asalariados y los activistas de los nuevos movimientos sociales. La primera es la de la colaboración de clases con su propia burguesía, contra los "alemanes", los "británicos", los "españoles" o los "japoneses", en una alianza de patrones y trabajadores. Esta estrategia no solo es reaccionaria ideológicamente, sino que nutre el chovinismo, el egoísmo a corto plazo, la xenofobia o el racismo. Es también una estrategia del avestruz. Como las multinacionales siempre encontrarán un país en el que los salarios sean más bajos, las condiciones de trabajo más duras, las libertades democráticas más limitadas, adoptar esa estrategia es sumirse en una espiral de salarios, condiciones de trabajo o libertades democráticas cada vez peores. Es luchar por una "igualación a la baja".»

Fue el economista británico John Maynard Keynes quién puso en primer plano la utilización del déficit presupuestario como instrumento para combatir la crisis económica y el paro. Una idea que ha sido parcialmente recuperada por el movimiento obrero organizado en numerosos países para relanzar la economía a través de un incremento significativo del gasto en obras públicas. Ese fue el caso en los años treinta en Bélgica del Plan de Trabajo del Partido Obrero belga.

Desde el punto de vista teórico, aumentar la demanda global (el poder de compra globalmente disponible) en un país dado facilita la recuperación económica en tanto haya disponible capacidad de producción no utilizada: trabajadores en paro, reservas de materias primas, maquinaria que no se utiliza a tiempo completo, etc. Estos recursos no utilizados son de alguna forma movilizados por el poder de compra suplementario que resulta del déficit presupuestario. Mientras que esas reservas no se agoten, el déficit presupuestario no tiene por qué desembocar inevitablemente en inflación.

Pero hay un pero. Para que el déficit presupuestario no genere inflación antes de que se alcance el pleno empleo, es necesario que los impuestos directos aumenten en la misma proporción que las rentas. Pero la burguesía prefiere suscribir deuda pública a pagar impuestos: la deuda paga dividendos, los impuestos no. El fraude fiscal es un fenómeno generalizado en la sociedad burguesa del siglo XX. Por ello, el déficit presupuestario va acompañado prácticamente siempre de un crecimiento de la deuda pública.

El servicio de dicha deuda supone un peso cada vez mayor del gasto público. Tiende a hacer crecer el déficit presupuestario sin ningún efecto positivo sobre el empleo. Por el contrario: como los asalariados y las asalariadas pagan sus impuestos antes de recibir su paga, retenidos de la nómina, el crecimiento de la deuda pública implica una redistribución de la renta nacional a expensas de los asalariados y en beneficio de la burguesía.

Keynes lo admitía no sin cierto cinismo. En su opinión, los asalariados y los sindicatos serían más sensibles a una reducción de los salarios nominales y de las prestaciones de la seguridad social que a una reducción efectiva de los salarios reales netos, acompañada de una subida de los salarios nominales (una visión que ha sido puesta en cuestión en los últimos decenios). Pero ¿el crecimiento de las rentas de los capitalistas no estimula las inversiones y, por lo tanto, el empleo? Esta es la tesis de los defensores de la recuperación a través de las "políticas de oferta", adversarios de Keynes en los años treinta y que han tenido una gran influencia sobre Reagan y la Sra. Thatcher.

De nuevo, no existen "automatismos"

Los argumentos de Keynes a este respecto son convincentes. Los capitalistas no están obligados a reinvertir sus beneficios suplementarios en la producción. Pueden optar por atesorarlos o utilizarlos con fines estrictamente especulativos. Pero cuando los invierten puede ser como inversiones de racionalización que supriman empleos en vez de crearlos.

Los capitalistas no trabajan para el "interés general". Lo que buscan es aumentar al máximo sus beneficios. Esa conducta es la que acaba por provocar el crecimiento periódico del paro y las crisis económicas más o menos largas. En el curso de estas crisis, el volumen y la tasa de ganancias caen. La restauración de la tasa de ganancias es una prioridad absoluta para la burguesía. El aumento de la tasa de explotación de los asalariados –en términos marxistas, la tasa de plusvalía− es el medio que utiliza para ello. La política de austeridad se convierte en su programa. La deflación "monetarista" y la inflación keynesiana no son sino dos variantes de esta misma orientación fundamental.

Un balance histórico incontrovertible

El balance histórico de la política keynesiana es bastante evidente. La experiencia más prometedora, el New Deal de Roosevelt, se saldó en un fracaso vergonzante. A pesar del crecimiento del gasto público, acabó desembocando en la crisis de 1938, con más de diez millones de parados en Estados Unidos. Solo la economía de rearme acelerado consiguió acabar con el paro masivo. Se confirmo así el diagnostico de Rosa Luxemburg, que identificó que la economía de producción de armamentos es el "mercado substitutivo" por excelencia de la época imperialista.

Después de 1948 fue la amplitud de los gastos en armamento en Estados Unidos lo que se convirtió en el motor de la expansión de la economía capitalista internacional en su conjunto. Fueron ellos los que sostuvieron la "onda larga expansiva" de la economía capitalista, a costa de un déficit presupuestario y de una inflación permanentes. El otro estímulo principal de la expansión fue el crecimiento enorme del crédito, es decir de la deuda, tanto de las grandes compañías como de los hogares mas pobres. Como hemos explicado una y otra vez, la economía capitalista se ha expandido flotando sobre un mar de deuda. Sólo la deuda en dólares alcanza actualmente la cifra astronómica de 10 billones de dólares, que incluye la famosa "deuda del tercer mundo" que afecta a más del 50% de los habitantes del planeta, pero que no representa más que el 15% del total.

Esta explosión de la deuda representa igualmente un mercado de substitución. Crea un poder de compra suplementario que permite amortiguar los efectos de las contradicciones internas del capitalismo. Pero esta capacidad de amortiguación es solo temporal. La hora de la verdad se retrasa, pero no indefinidamente. El endeudamiento creciente alimenta inevitablemente la inflación. A partir de un cierto umbral, en vez de estimular la expansión, comienza a estrangularla. Ello precipita la conversión de la "onda larga expansiva" en "onda larga depresiva", tal y como ocurrió a finales de los años 60 y comienzos de los 70.

Hay además algo irreal en la oposición desarrollada por los dogmáticos del neoliberalismo entre las llamadas políticas de "oferta" y las políticas de "demanda" a través del déficit presupuestario. El déficit presupuestario nunca ha sido tan grande como bajo la administración del autoproclamado campeón del neoliberalismo, Ronald Reagan. Lo mismo se puede afirmar en buena medida de la Sra. Thatcher. Ambos han sido campeones de un neo-keynesianismo de choque, a pesar de sus profesiones de fe en sentido contrario. El verdadero debate no es sobre el tamaño del déficit presupuestario, sino en qué se utiliza. ¿Que clase social o fracciones de clase se benefician?, ¿con que resultados para el conjunto de la economía y de la sociedad?

En este sentido, los datos empíricos son incontrovertibles. El neo-keynesianismo de Reagan y de la Sra. Thatcher, asociado a los dogmas "monetaristas" (como la estabilidad monetaria a todo precio) ha reforzado brutalmente en todos lados la ofensiva de austeridad del gran capital. Se ha reducido el gasto social y las inversiones en infraestructuras. Se han multiplicado los gastos de armamento en Estados Unidos, Gran Bretaña y en menor medida en Japón y Alemania. Han aumentado los subsidios a las empresas privadas. Ha crecido la desigualdad social. Se ha estimulado el paro, que ha pasado de 10 a 50 millones de desempleados, si no más, en los países imperialistas, y ha alcanzado, si no superado, los 500 millones de personas en el "tercer mundo". Los efectos sociales globales han sido aún más desastrosos. Los cursos de economía del desarrollo que se imparten en todas las universidades del mundo afirman con toda la razón que las inversiones más productivas a largo plazo son las que tienen lugar en los sectores de la enseñanza, la sanidad pública y las infraestructuras. Pero los dogmáticos del neoliberalismo hacen caso omiso de esta sabiduría elemental cuando abordan los problemas de las finanzas públicas bajo el principio del "restablecimiento del equilibrio" a cualquier precio. Cortan en primer lugar los presupuestos de enseñanza, sanidad e infraestructuras, con efectos desastrosos a medio plazo, incluidos los que se dan sobre la productividad.

¿Quiere ello decir que los socialistas y los humanistas deben preferir el keynesianismo tradicional, que defiende las distintas variantes del "estado del bienestar", en vez del cóctel envenenado de monetarismo y neo-keynesianismo que se nos quiere servir hoy? La respuesta parece ser obvia, pero debemos matizarla. El keynesianismo tradicional implica formas diversas de ejercicio y reparto del poder en el marco de la sociedad burguesa. Ello conlleva siempre diversas formas de "contrato social" y de consenso con el gran capital sobre la base de lo que es aceptable para el gran capital, es decir, de un "consenso" unilateral (socialismo de gestión). A ello oponemos la prioridad absoluta de la defensa de los intereses inmediatos de los asalariados y de los objetivos válidos de los "nuevos movimientos sociales" (ecologistas, feministas, pacifistas, de solidaridad con el tercer mundo). Ello exige mantener o recuperar la independencia política de la clase de los asalariados y asalariadas. Por otra parte, el keynesianismo tradicional como mal menor en relación con las políticas deflacionistas sólo tiene sentido si produce una reducción rápida y radical del paro. Porque en las condiciones actuales, el neo-keynesianismo lleva a un crecimiento del paro y de la marginación de sectores cada vez mayores de la población. No supone ningún freno al objetivo de la burguesía de una "sociedad dual", a la división institucional de la clase asalariada, a la degradación y desmoralización creciente de sectores de las clases trabajadoras. Mediante la despolitización y la desesperanza se crea así el caldo de cultivo para el crecimiento de la extrema derecha neo-fascista.

El peso de las multinacionales

El capitalismo tardío se caracteriza por otra parte por una concentración y centralización internacional del capital sin comparación con el pasado. Las compañías multinacionales se han convertido en la principal forma de organización del gran capital. Menos de 700 empresas dominan la mayor parte del mercado mundial. Ante las todo poderosas multinacionales, los estados-nación tradicionales son cada vez más incapaces de aplicar en los hechos una política económica coherente y eficaz. Es cierto que las multinacionales no son la única forma que adoptan las grandes empresas. A su lado subsisten grandes empresas sectoriales esencialmente "nacionales", además de empresas públicas y mixtas de todo tipo y diferentes en cada país. El papel económico del estado-nación no se ha reducido, por lo tanto, a cero. Pero hay que reconocer que esta es la tendencia fundamental a largo plazo, es decir, un declive gradual (ni inmediato, ni total) de la eficacia del intervencionismo económico del estado nacional. La ofensiva ideológica del neoliberalismo es en gran medida el producto y no la causa de esta evolución.

Ante el ascenso de las multinacionales, el estado-nación ha dejado de ser un instrumento económico adecuado para la burguesía. Pero sigue necesitándolo para auto-defenderse. Necesita al estado para defender sus intereses particulares frente a los competidores extranjeros. Necesita el estado para amortiguar los choques de las crisis económicas y sociales. Necesita el estado para reprimir en caso de crisis socio-económicas explosivas. En la medida en que el estado nación le es menos útil, tiende a sustituirlo por instituciones supranacionales. Pero para que estas adquieran funciones comparables a las estatales, hay que superar importantes obstáculos políticos, culturales, ideológicos. Y acaba siendo mucho más complicado que lo previsto inicialmente.

De la misma manera, la unificación de la Europa capitalista sigue arrastrándose entre una vaga confederación de estados soberanos (una zona de libre cambio), y una federación europea de carácter realmente estatal, con una moneda común, un banco central común, una política industrial y agrícola común, un ejercito y una policía comunes, todos ellos representados por un auténtico gobierno común. Las instituciones surgidas del acta única o de los Acuerdos de Maastricht reflejan bien ese carácter híbrido. Se trata de instituciones pre-estatales, semi-estatales, que no son realmente estatales. El auténtico poder sigue en manos del consejo de ministros, es decir de los doce gobiernos asociados. Las transferencias reales de soberanía son muy limitadas. La disparidad de las realidades nacionales sigue pesando mucho.

Ni repliegue proteccionista ni euforia europeísta

Los Acuerdos de Maastricht imponen a los estados que participan de pleno derecho en la Europa unida una reducción del déficit presupuestario del 3% del PIB para mantener la estabilidad monetaria. Pocos estados alcanzarán este objetivo en 1996, en 1997 o 1998. ¿Se avanzará a una Europa a cinco (Alemania, Francia, Benelux)? Todo el mecanismo parece gripado. Hay que añadir además una bomba retardada: los efectos a medio plazo de la llamada "estabilización presupuestaria" sobre la coyuntura económica y especialmente sobre el empleo. Según una nota confidencial de la OCDE, dichos efectos serán muy negativos. Solo el hecho de que Maastricht implique un reforzamiento de la política de austeridad es motivo más que suficiente para que el movimiento obrero y la izquierda alternativa rechacen dichos acuerdos.

Pero no hay que engañarse. En realidad, con la excusa del "rigor presupuestario", Maastricht no es más que una política dura de austeridad con la que se han comprometido todos los gobiernos. Es a esa política de austeridad a la que hay que enfrentarse, más allá de los acuerdos de Maastricht. Es decir, la oposición a Maastricht no debe adoptar la forma de un repliegue proteccionista y nacionalista.

Una estrategia de ese tipo sería una pérdida de tiempo, porque nos volvería a confrontar con las políticas de austeridad. Incluso proporcionaría una "justificación" ideológica adicional: la defensa de la soberanía nacional. ¿No ha sido así como la dirección del Partido Socialista belga, los Martens o Dehaene han abrazado las políticas de austeridad para defender la "competitividad nacional" o "nuestra" industria?

Ante la internacionalización creciente del capital y del poder de las multinacionales no hay más que dos estrategias posibles para los asalariados y los activistas de los nuevos movimientos sociales. La primera es la de la colaboración de clases con su propia burguesía, contra los "alemanes", los "británicos", los "españoles" o los "japoneses", en una alianza de patrones y trabajadores. Esta estrategia no solo es reaccionaria ideológicamente, sino que nutre el chovinismo, el egoísmo a corto plazo, la xenofobia o el racismo. Es también una estrategia del avestruz. Como las multinacionales siempre encontrarán un país en el que los salarios sean más bajos, las condiciones de trabajo más duras, las libertades democráticas más limitadas, adoptar esa estrategia es sumirse en una espiral de salarios, condiciones de trabajo o libertades democráticas cada vez peores. Es luchar por una "igualación a la baja".

La segunda estrategia es la única eficaz, la de la unidad y colaboración de los asalariados de todos los países y de sus aliados contra los patronos de todos los países, con el objetivo de mantener todas las conquistas sociales y de elevar progresivamente los salarios, la seguridad social, las condiciones de trabajo de los asalariados de los países más desfavorecidos en relación con los países con mayores conquistas. Es la lógica de la "igualación por lo alto".

Coordinar la respuesta internacional

Es verdad que en el seno de las instituciones europeas, hay matices que enfrentan a las fuerzas del "centro-izquierda" con las del "centro-derecha". Los debates en relación con la "carta social europea" dan testimonio de estas diferencias. Por ello, no defendemos la política de cuanto peor, mejor. Pero no tenemos más remedio que constatar que ambos defienden la política de austeridad.

No nos oponemos por lo tanto a la Europa de Maastricht y las multinacionales en nombre de una prioridad de acción política en el marco del estado-nación. Nuestro objetivo a largo plazo son los Estados Unidos Socialistas de Europa, en la vía de la Federación Socialista Mundial, único marco adecuado para resolver los acuciantes problemas de la Humanidad.

Apoyamos todas las iniciativas que favorecen la toma de conciencia de la necesidad de una acción común de los asalariados en el terreno político a escala europea. Por ello estamos a favor de todo aquello que ayude a una protección común de los asalariados a escala europea, sobre todo de los más desfavorecidos.

Sabemos que no se crearán a corto y medio plazo los Estados Unidos Socialistas de Europa, dada la correlación de fuerzas existente. Por ello damos la máxima prioridad a la defensa intransigente de los intereses inmediatos, económicos y políticos de las masas, tanto a nivel europeo como nacional.

La prioridad es la acción de masas extra-parlamentaria. Esta prioridad no supone rechazar ninguna iniciativa parlamentaria o legislativa en los Parlamentos nacionales o en su sucedáneo europeo. Implica al mismo tiempo una dimensión moral decisiva: la recuperación por parte del movimiento obrero, de los asalariados y sus aliados, del principio de la solidaridad, que expresa de forma tan admirable la consigna del sindicalismo americano: "un ataque a uno es un ataque contra todos".

Déficit presupuestario e internacionalización del capital en la teoría marxista

| Ernest Mandel · · · · ·

Traducción para www.sinpermiso.info: G. Buster

El desgobierno europeo


Los ataques especulativos contra economías como la griega o la española han obligado a plantear, una vez más, el papel de la Unión Europea ante la crisis. Al hilo de este debate, el presidente del Consejo Europeo Herman Van Rompuy ha defendido la imperiosa necesidad de un “Gobierno económico” común. Con ello ha apelado a una consigna compartida por otras instituciones comunitarias, como la Comisión, e incluso por presidentes como Nicolas Sarkozy o el propio José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Como en tantas otras cuestiones, el problema no radica en la fórmula en sí, sino en el contenido concreto que se pretende darle. “Gobierno económico europeo”, sí, pero ¿en qué ámbitos?, ¿con qué objetivos?
Estas preguntas son especialmente pertinentes si se piensa que hace tiempo que las decisiones económicas europeas “gobiernan” o condicionan de manera inequívoca las políticas estatales. Esto es así al menos desde los años ochenta, cuando el Acta Única dejó negro sobre blanco la voluntad de crear un mercado único que asegurara la libre circulación de capitales, servicios y mercancías. Esa intervención liberalizadora, sumada a la prohibición de ayudas estatales que “distorsionaran la competencia”, generó una fuerte presión para la privatización y mercantilización de servicios públicos. Y permitió que gobiernos de diverso signo, por convicción o por temor, asumieran dichas políticas como una decisión urdida en Bruselas.
Con el Tratado de Maastricht y la entrada en vigor del euro, el intervencionismo económico europeo se afianzó todavía más. A la obsesión liberalizadora de los años ochenta, se sumó una nueva obsesión monetarista que convirtió la eliminación del déficit público y de la inflación en auténticos dogmas de fe. En teoría, ello no impediría que los estados miembros desarrollen con normalidad sus propias políticas fiscales y sociales. En la práctica, la receta que ha permitido el ajuste a los severos criterios establecidos por el Pacto de Estabilidad ha acabado siendo la misma que hoy se pretende imponer a Grecia: privatizaciones, recortes en gasto social y pensiones, y contención de los salarios.
Nada de esto ha ocurrido de manera espontánea. La imposición de este rígido corsé ha contado con el firme respaldo de un entramado institucional en el que la Comisión, el Banco Central Europeo, el Tribunal de Justicia y los ejecutivos estatales han llevado la voz cantante. A veces, la ejecución de este guión de consecuencias impopulares ha dado lugar a roces, como cuando la Comisión intentó sancionar a Alemania y a Francia por excesos en el déficit. Pero en la mayoría de las veces tanto Bruselas como los ejecutivos estatales han actuado de consuno para asegurar este singular modelo económico.
En realidad, cuando los representantes de la UE demandan un mayor gobierno económico para salvar la moneda única, parece evidente que lo que piden es una lisa y llana restauración de los controles liberalizadores y monetaristas impuestos en las últimas décadas. El problema, como han apuntado economistas como Krugman, es que es esta receta, precisamente, la que ha conducido al descontrol y al desgobierno actuales.
Es esta concepción neoliberal del gobierno económico que tan enfáticamente se reclama la que está en el origen de las operaciones especulativas y del crecimiento insostenible que han conducido a la crisis actual. Y la que ha contribuido a la erosión de los servicios públicos y a la feroz precarización laboral que asola a la Europa de los 27, con toda su carga de autoritarismo y de xenofobia.
Un verdadero gobierno público de la economía, orientado a lograr una salida solidaria y sostenible a la crisis, debería propiciar objetivos de todo punto diferentes. Para comenzar, una democratización genuina del oligárquico entramado institucional europeo que de manera despótica se ha querido legitimar con el Tratado de Lisboa. Pero también el abandono de las obsesiones liberalizadoras y monetaristas que amenazan los derechos sociales todavía vigentes a escala estatal e impiden su profundización y extensión en el ámbito europeo. Ello permitiría plantear sin complejos cuestiones como la introducción de límites a la circulación de capitales o la erradicación de los paraísos fiscales. O el impulso de una armonización al alza de los derechos sociales y laborales que neutralice el dumping provocado por las políticas hoy vigentes. O la articulación, en fin, de una fiscalidad europea progresiva y ecológicamente orientada capaz de impulsar políticas redistributivas de ámbito supraestatal.
Ninguna de estas propuestas, por desgracia, ha salido de boca de los responsables institucionales en las últimas semanas. Todo ello hace sospechar que la consigna del “gobierno económico europeo”, como antes la de la “refundación del capitalismo”, es poco más que una operación de restauración incapaz de superar el desgobierno social y democrático al que han conducido las políticas practicadas en las últimas décadas. Otra Europa, dispuesta a refundarse desde abajo, podría ser la solución. Mientras tanto, esta Europa sigue siendo parte del problema.

El desgobierno europeo

| Jaime Pastor · Gerardo Pisarello · · · ·



Dossier Grecia


Publicamos tres artículos sobre Grecia. El primero, de Michael Krätke, enmarca la situación de este país mediterráneo en el conjunto de la situación económica de la Unión Europea. Alejandro Nadal escribe el segundo y afirma: “[La crisis en Grecia] es la prueba de que la economía mundial permanecerá una larga temporada, quizás más de diez años, sumergida en un letargo profundo”. Finalmente, el tercer artículo es una crónica de Matthew Cookson sobre la huelga general que se realizó en Grecia el 24 de febrero.

What is the responsibility of journalism?


I think the key question for journalists today is the question whether or not journalism brings responsibility. There are many great schools for communication and journalism, on which journalist learn to write high quality articles on various subjects, there is a professional association for each part of the journalistic handcraft and journalists today can earn a good living from their work. With non of these there seem to be any problem. There is only that other question. Does a journalist have a social responsibility?

Does a journalist have craft specified ethics? Can a journalist from one day on the other decide not to be a journalist any more? I think this is a question that we cannot escape. The press is often seen as the fourth power in the Trias Politica, the dividing between executive, legislature and judiciary power. As the word says, all these three, with journalism four, powers are in the first place political powers. Politics come with "social relations involving authority or power" (http://dictionary.die.net/politics 03-10-2009), and with power comes responsibility. If the press is indeed the fourth power, than that means it has an enormous power, and with that, a huge responsibility.

That the press is that powerful is obvious. In the last hundred years three wars have been started influenced by the press. The Spanish-American war, the Vietnam war and the second Gulf war. The Spanish-American war was greatly caused by the struggle between Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst for popularity. Sensation in the papers let to improving sales, whether it was true or not. And the war certainly gave sensation in the papers, and there for, improving sales. The Vietnam war was highly promoted by Nixon favoured newspapers. With the second Gulfwar the war was strongly promoted by Fox News in the US and the and other Rupert Murdoch press stations. The powerfull Murdoch enterprise is strongest in the US, Australia and England. We shouldn't be surprised that these where the countries most willing to run into this war. Three examples. Maybe there are more examples, but these are the ones that I can give. In my opinion this means that journalism has enough power to be counted as a political power. With this political power the press has a great responsibility.

Pulitzer and Murdoch

Joseph Pulitzer competed with Randolph Hearst with as result: War.
Joseph Pulitzer competed with Randolph Hearst with as result: War.
Rupert Murdoch and his wife. The Australian media tycoon is a strong pillar of the political right wing.
Rupert Murdoch and his wife. The Australian media tycoon is a strong pillar of the political right wing.

PREDIGITADOR DE IDEIAS


O «saber especializado» de muita gente não é utilizado, a favor dos «opinion makers profissionais» ,a culpa é também dos «especialistas» que se afastam dos media e são incapazes de «falar para as pessoas»...MRS é um exemplar da progressiva hegemonia dos «políticos» na imprensa -onde começou ainda antes do 25 de Abril - e se tornou um especialista na arte da comunicação,na TVI, um verdadeiro mago da predigitação de ideias,da capa do professor saem números especializados de política que o público muito aprecia como quem assiste à actuação de um acrobata capaz de verdadeiros mergulhos no Tejo...

27.2.10

A IDEIA DE UM GOVERNO TEMÁTICO


A ideia de um governo temático vai fazendo o seu caminho,é uma alternativa à fórmula dos governos vigentes... É bom que a agenda política deixe de dizer uma coisa e fazer outra e nesse sentido é bom que se promova uma Cultra de discussão...



UCHRONIC DREAMS:
Working-Class Memory and Possible Worlds

Alessandro Portelli


Another US Slowdown Will Jolt Private Markets


Reuters reports that according to ECRI, U.S. economic growth to ease by mid-year:

A forward-looking measure of U.S. economic growth was unchanged in the latest week, while its yearly growth gauge continued to slide, bolstering expectations that economic growth will ease by mid-year, a research group said on Friday.

The Economic Cycle Research Institute, a New York-based independent forecasting group, said its Weekly Leading Index stood at 128.4 for the week ended Feb. 19, unchanged from the previous week.

It was the lowest reading since November 13, 2009, when it stood at 127.5.

The index's annualized growth rate declined for the 11th straight week to 14.9 percent from 17.0 percent the previous week, revised from an original 17.1 percent. It was the yearly growth gauge's lowest level since Aug. 7, 2009 when it read 14.6 percent.

"The decline in WLI growth to a 28-week low reinforces our earlier expectation that economic growth would begin to ease by mid-year," said ECRI Managing Director Lakshman Achuthan.

The chart above was taken from the Pragmatist Capitalist who also covered this story. Given ECRI's strong track record, it's worth paying close attention to their warnings. What is worrisome from a pensions perspective is that commercial real estate is still in the doldrums and private equity is struggling to regain its footing. If the US economy slows down again, then private markets will experience a long, tough slug ahead.

26.2.10

Obama’s Chicago Tactics

The first quarter of the Obama administration is finally over. The key issue was not health care, not terrorism, not jobs. Nor was it the promise of “transformational change” that permeated the presidential campaign. The key issue was power—how the power of Washington’s political culture would respond to the power of the Chicago political culture imported by the Obama team.

When the media mentioned the administration’s “Chicago tactics” or when opponents complained that the White House staff behaved like “Chicago pols,” they were saying that the Obama team could be aggressive, tough, even mean.

That mild and broad critique missed the more important features of the Chicago way of doing politics: an approach that translated brilliantly in the presidential campaign and miserably after the inauguration. Here are those features—as I’ve observed them for 50 years, first as a young person growing up in a blue-collar Chicago neighborhood, then as an organizer in Chicago, New York, and elsewhere—and a look at how Washington has responded to their presence.

The Man on Five. The mayor’s office in Chicago is on the fifth floor of City Hall. The Man on Five is the hub, center, source of all good, generator of all punishment. This has nothing to do with charisma. The two mayors named Daley and most other machine mayors have had little personal pizzazz, no speaking skills, and a more transactional than transformational approach. Decade after decade, they have methodically consolidated and centralized power and influence. There is no counterweight—no House of Representatives, no Senate, no independent committee chairs. The City Council is a vaudeville show directed by the mayor. His power is unilateral, one-way, top-down. The key White House staff—Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and Valerie Jarrett—inhaled this culture and carried it with them to Washington.

But their new reality includes an outnumbered opposition that will not cringe at a call from the White House, fellow Democrats who value self-preservation over sweeping legislation that may cost them votes, and middle-level bureaucrats who have seen administrations come and go. The Washington crowd knows how to play defense, if nothing else—how to block, obstruct, stymie. At this stage, Obama may be more like Eisenhower than any other American president. When Ike, the victorious general who had commanded millions of men, took office, outgoing President Truman said, “Poor Ike, he’ll say do this and do that; and nothing will happen.”

Control is God. The organizing principle in the Chicago political culture is control—control of who gets to the Man on Five and who doesn’t, control of how a bill or event burnishes the mayor’s myth or doesn’t, control of who runs for other offices and who doesn’t. The mortal sin of this culture is independence based in any value higher than loyalty to the Mayor.

The organizing principle of Washington is also control, but scores of power brokers exercise it, each with his or her own turf and perks, each resisting encroachment. Mutual deference is fundamental. This leads to a perfectly calibrated and balanced system of non-action or minimal action. Many people were puzzled when they heard wailing from the White House over the loss of the 60th Senate vote, but the administration’s despair was logical in the context of the Chicago political culture. In the Windy City, if you don’t have total control and the ability to dominate, you have no control and are check-mated. The art of using an overwhelming majority of 59 to 41 has not been practiced for generations in Chicago. Faced with anything other than uncontestable clout, the Chicagoans who went to Washington might as well have been asked to speak Greek.

Elections Mean Everything. The one thing that the political machine excels at is managing the electoral process from start to finish. Selecting and grooming candidates. Buying or scaring off reformers. Marshaling election lawyers to knock out other candidates’ petitions. Using only paid public employees to work (illegally, but with almost no chance of being caught and prosecuted because of the care taken to avoid detection) in campaigns and on election day. Filling vacancies produced by indictments and convictions of insiders with even tighter insiders. Nobody does it better. This is why the presidential campaign did so well in caucus states and less well in those with open elections: the machine thrives on narrow or limited voting situations. But it founders on the kind of fluid and shifting series of skirmishes that, say, the health care struggle became. The president’s decision to bring his Chicago team into the White House may, therefore, have been his worst. Axelrod, Jarrett, and even Emanuel are much more suited to electoral than legislative campaigns. Imagine if a different threesome—Richard Ravitch, Donna Shalala, and George Mitchell—had filled those positions this past year.

The way forward is not bigger government or more bureaucracies in Washington. It is government revenue directed back to local people and local projects.

Other People’s Money. The Chicago political culture is run by families or tribes—Daleys, Strogers, Madigans, Mells, Jacksons, and others—that have been on the public payroll for as long as 85 years. Most members of these tribes have never earned a dollar in the private or nonprofit sectors. They have grown accustomed to drawing their salaries from public agencies, sequestering and spending tax dollars, and using their public positions to grow even richer as lawyers and consultants to private interests who need public favors, ultimately drawing pay for their private efforts from the public coffers. Back in Illinois, leaders of both parties—Democrats in the northern part of the state, Republicans in the suburbs and central parts of the state—have grown up in this culture, reinforced it, and prospered because of it. They take other people’s money for granted the way most people take oxygen for granted. Suddenly, the Chicago cohort finds itself surrounded by an opposition party and moderates within their own party who come from states and regions where there is no such sense of entitlement.

Does all this add up to the end of this administration, as some have suggested? Not at all. I’d argue this could mean that the administration, having squandered the first quarter, is finally ready to play.

But first it would have to draft some new players, remove most of the Chicago crowd and shed many of the political habits developed in a machine political environment.

Then it would have to stop playing by the rules set by the permanent elite in Washington and approach the nation’s core concerns in a very different way.

The administration’s proposal to create a new federal agency to hold financial institutions accountable is an excellent example of not doing things differently. It plays right into the hands of the Washington political and bureaucratic establishment. Metro Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF)—the organization I work for—proposed a much simpler and more targeted solution: reestablish limits on interest rates—our goal: 10 percent—so that the extraordinary drain of wealth that still harms scores of millions of Americans could be stanched. Until the late 1970s, the United States capped interest rates at 9 percent in most circumstances, and banks were still profitable. Since then, the economy has operated without fiscal speed limits. Reestablishing those limits on credit cards, payday loans, and other predatory credit vehicles would do more for the majority of Americans than another new agency or several thousand pages of regulations. The appeal for this basic restraint has been heard even by titans of finance: the CEO of Citigroup surprised the financial industry by recently agreeing that a cap on interest rates, with certain conditions, would be possible.

The White House should take advantage of all of its current administrative powers to limit the widespread—and, according to many religious traditions, sinful—practice of usury. It could deposit federal funds only in financial institutions that agree to refrain from toxic practices such as payday lending, rapid tax refunds, and predatory home financing, and that operate with a reasonable limit on interest rates and fees. Government could reward responsible institutions with massive deposits and punish others with massive withdrawals. Metro IAF leaders recently met with New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli—who happens to be the sole trustee for approximately $130 billion of pension funds—and asked him to consider a strategy of this sort.

The same approach could be applied to the foreclosure issue. Those financial institutions that begin to renegotiate loans in earnest and reduce principal would benefit from billions of new federal, state, and local deposits. Those that don’t would not. Financial institutions would still be free to operate irresponsibly. But there would now be a price to pay for their irresponsibility.

The crisis in unemployment and underemployment can’t be solved with simple carrots and sticks, but equally requires that the administration repudiate both the Washington and Chicago styles. There are only three ways to create jobs: encourage business expansion, consumer spending, or government spending. The notion of putting two million unemployed Americans back to work is far removed from our imagination and discussion. In addition, the ability to put that many people to work—the institutional capacity—is disappearing from our culture. China and India mobilize workers at this level, not the United States. How to do this? Perhaps something like Race to the Top would work here. The Department of Education has essentially released a request for proposals for states to respond to. Each state that chooses to apply is graded based on criteria established by the Department. The winners will receive large grants. The losers will not.

This process could be used to stem unemployment. Each state would be asked to apply for a portion of the $60 billion needed to stimulate employment for as many as two million Americans (the equivalent of a subsidy of $30,000 per worker). Here are the criteria:

• Commitment to hire new people (so that the funds aren’t used to plug budget gaps and support the existing workforce, and so that unscrupulous employers do not use the effort to fire veteran workers and hire lower-cost and subsidized new employees).

• Large-scale public works included in the proposal (cleaning and beautifying the dreadful Amtrak corridor in the northeast; maintaining national and local parks; removing blight from the burned-out and shrunken cities of the Midwest; painting and upgrading school buildings everywhere).

• Reliance on capable institutions—not political machines—to organize and deploy workers. One institution that has proven effective in many states is the military. Young veterans with experience in leading and motivating others could play an important role here. Those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to face minimal employment or unemployment would have an option of two years of continued, paid domestic service through this effort.

• Reinforcement of small business development (still a main generator of new jobs). This is a challenge requiring supple responses—just enough incentive to buttress true entrepreneurs, just enough judgment to ferret out the hustlers and opportunists who will see the absorption of subsidy as a business opportunity in and of itself.

The states, counties, organizations, and businesses that bring the most value to the effort—preexisting support, supervision, and productive workforce training—would be rewarded with greater funding.

This scale of expenditure would require legislative action, but it would be in the interests of every congressional delegation—left, right, and center—to take this option seriously. It would place local elected officials in the position of rejecting federal support that would both put constituents to work and address local infrastructure and other needs. Local residents could organize to identify and prioritize the projects and initiatives addressed by this effort. It would be up to members of local communities to determine the number of people who would be employed and types of projects undertaken. This is not bigger government or more bloated bureaucracies in Washington. It is government revenue directed back to local people and local projects. The ownership of this effort must be real, deep, and close to the ground.

As presently constituted, the White House cannot undertake these sorts of necessary and far-reaching initiatives. The president packed his staff with those who grew up in the unique political culture of Chicago and Cook County, one of the last remaining islands of machine domination in the nation. When the machine went to Washington, it did what it has always done and what worked back home: try to crush or co-opt opponents, project and promote the image of a mythic leader, tightly control the media, and rely on those who helped win the election. The disarray that the administration finds itself in after its first year is a direct result of the failure of this culture to function under new circumstances.

Different players, with a different approach, can tackle the lingering and deepening problems that plague huge numbers of Americans. These Americans have a mind to work and are waiting to support and lead effective action.

After all, power, properly understood, is still just that: the ability to act.

Michael Gecan





Global Sweatshop Wage Slavery


In its mission statement, the National Labor Committee (NLC) highlights the problem stating:

Transnational corporations (TNCs) now roam the world to find the cheapest and most vulnerable workers.” They’re mostly young women in poor countries like China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Haiti, and many others working up to 14 or more hours a day for sub-poverty wages under horrific conditions.

Because TNCs are unaccountable, a dehumanized global workforce is ruthlessly exploited, denied their civil liberties, a living wage, and the right to work in dignity in healthy safe environments. NLC conducts “popular campaigns based on (its) original research to promote worker rights and pressure companies to end human and labor abuses. (It) views worker rights in the global economy as indivisible and inalienable human rights and (believes) now is the time to secure them for all on the planet.

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24 states: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”

Definition of a Sweatshop

The term has been around since the 19th century.

Definitions vary but essentially refer to workplaces where employees work for poor pay, few or no benefits, in unsafe, unfavorable, harsh, and/or hazardous environments, are treated inhumanely by employers, and are prevented from organizing for redress.

The term itself refers to the technique of “sweating” the maximum profit from each worker, a practice that thrived in the late 19th century.

Webster calls them “A shop or factory in which workers are employed for long hours at low wages under unhealthy conditions.”

According to the group Sweatshop Watch:

A sweatshop is a workplace that violates the law and where workers are subject to:

– extreme exploitation, including the absence of a living wage or long hours;

– poor working conditions, such as health and safety hazards;

– arbitrary discipline, such as verbal or physical abuse, or

– fear and intimidation when they speak out, organize, or attempt to form a union.

It’s mainly a women’s rights issue as 90% of the workforce is female, between the ages of 15-25. But it’s also an environmental one as the global economy exacts a huge price through air pollution, ozone layer depletion, acid rain, ocean and fresh water contamination, and an overtaxed ecosystem producing unhealthy, unsafe living conditions globally.

According to the US Department of Labor, a sweatshop is a place of employment that violates two or more federal or state labor laws governing wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, workers’ compensation or industry regulation.

To understand the practice, it’s essential to view it in a broader globalization context. In their book titled, Globalization and Progressive Economic Policy, Dean Baker, Robert Pollin and Gerald Epstein present the opinions of 36 prominent economists, asking:

Does globalization cause inequality? Instability? Unemployment? Environmental degradation? Or is it an engine of prosperity and wealth for the vast majority of people everywhere? They conclude that it can work for good or ill depending on how much control governments, corporations, and individuals exert, but also say:

…most discussions of globalization hold that the power of nation-states to influence economic activity is eroding as economies become more integrated, while the power of private businesses and market forces is correspondingly rising.

In other words, the dog that once wagged the tail now is the tail, the result of eroded state sovereignty and powerful private institutions, producing a race to the bottom conducive to exploiting labor — most prominently in poor countries but also in developed ones.

Wage Slavery in America

In America, the US Department of Labor estimates that half or more of the nation’s 22,000 garment factories are sweatshops, mostly in the apparel centers of New York, California, Dallas, Miami and Atlanta, but also offshore in US territories like Saipan, Guam and American Samoa where merchandise is labeled “Made in the USA.”

In all locations, wages are low, often sub-poverty, benefits few if any, and regulatory enforcement lax or absent. Hours are long, working conditions unsafe, and those complaining are fired and replaced.

Conditions are also horrific for around two million farm workers — exploited, living in sub-poverty misery, without benefits, a living wage, overtime pay, or other job protections, even for children. Because state and federal oversight are lax, Florida workers have been chained to poles, locked in trucks, physically beaten, and cheated out of pay, yet are intimidated to stay silent.

They also perform dangerous jobs, experience workplace accidents, and are exposed daily to toxic chemicals. As a result, about 300,000 suffer pesticide poisoning annually, and many others experience accidents, musculoskeletal, and other type injuries, some serious.

Workers in Florida, Texas, California, Washington, and North Carolina are most vulnerable, with nowhere to go for redress except those benefitting from a few organizing victories. Impressive as they are, however, they’re no match against agribusiness giants or companies like Wal-Mart, a ruthless exploiter of worker rights.

Domestic servitude is another problem affecting many thousands, usually foreign women taking jobs as live-in workers, mostly for the wealthy, foreign diplomats, or other domestic or foreign officials. They seek a better life, send money home to families, yet are exploited — often by unscrupulous traffickers who hold them in forced servitude, work them up to 19 hours a day, pay them $100 or less a month, and subject them to sexual abuse.

They’re are excluded from labor law protections. As a result, they’re underpaid, work long hours, have little rest, are abused, given limited freedom, denied medical care, proper food and nutrition, and are subjected to unsafe working conditions.

So are many restaurant and hotel workers — underpaid with few benefits, worked long hours without overtime pay, fired if they complain, and these practices exist for lack of regulation and a growing demand for cheap labor, letting unscrupulous employers exploit powerless workers for profit. If it’s common in America, what chance have workers in developing countries with lax labor laws offering few protections, even for children, to attract business.

Abuse happens often in dangerous, unhealthy environments for sub-poverty wages, with no overtime pay, breaks or bathroom visits, even when sick. Employees suffer numerous accidents (at times severe), can’t organize, and are harassed, intimidated, and fired if they try.

In today’s globalized economy, capital is highly mobile, free to go anywhere for the highest return by fleeing locales with high taxes, strict labor laws, or rigorous environmental protections yielding lower profits by raising costs, the main one being labor that’s easy to get cheap in developing states eager to grow and needing to new businesses do it. The result is a race to the bottom, a phenomenon Karl Polanyi described in The Great Transformation — namely, that:

“To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings… would result in the demolition of society…. Nature would be reduced to its elements, neighborhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted, military safety jeopardized, the power to produce food and raw materials destroyed.” And labor, of course, exploited for the lowest cost.

NLC on Wal-Mart

With over $400 billion in sales and about 2.1 million employees, Wal-Mart is the world’s largest retailer and private employer, and number three globally in the 2009 Fortune 500 rankings behind Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon.

On December 16, 2009, NLC reported that “Wal-Mart’s Punitive Policies Drive Employees to Work Sick – Everyone comes to work sick.”

(1) A deli section worker in a Pennsylvania company supercenter said:

“Everyone comes to work sick,” including employees handling food. In the deli section, “plenty of girls come coughing their brains out, but can’t go home because of points (unless they’re) coughing too loudly (in which case they) switch you to another department. Since you can’t take days off,” she kept working. Her cough worsened, and she ended up hospitalized with pneumonia.

“You can’t stay home, and God forbid if you have to leave early.” For being hospitalized, she got a demerit, lost eight hours pay, and was required to take a leave of absence. Being sick, deli section work was hard because it’s a “hot area,” requiring in and out visits to a freezer to get meat.

“Everyone is sweating and your hair is all wet, but we can’t use fans because of the dust.” Under Wal-Mart’s “Open Availability” policy, management demands all associates be available 24-7. “A flood of people would leave the company if they could find other work. Fear and need” keep them there.

(2) A worker taking time off to be with her injured, traumatized son was docked eight hours pay, then said:

“Wal-Mart puts you in the position where you are supposed to put your job ahead of your children.”

Like others, she worked sick to avoid demerits and lost wages. One time she worked with a strep throat, the infection spread, and she became so dehydrated she passed out and needed hospitalization. Out three days, she was penalized a day’s pay.

(3) A senior Wal-Mart employee told NLC about supervisors acting “like bullies who like to intimidate workers.”

(4) Another Wal-Mart worker told NLC:

“Wal-Mart’s (sick) policy has not changed, and they have not said a word to anyone. No one knows of any change….and everyone continues coming to work, even if they are really sick,” including food handlers.

They get demerits but not told how many. Workers accumulating four in six months get verbal or written “coaching.” One more means no promotions or upgrading from part-time to full-time status for those working less than a full load.

As a result, one worker said morale is low and “pretty much everyone hates their jobs,” but haven’t much choice in today’s economic climate. Even Wal-Mart instituted staff cuts, making it harder for shoppers to be served. Some of them yell “at us all the time, screaming and cursing at us” for a situation out of their control.

(5) At Wal-Mart, workers needing a day off must request it four weeks in advance, no matter what the emergency.

(6) At the company’s Nampa, Idaho supercenter, a worker was fired for having Swine Flu. At first she worked sick, then wasn’t able to several days and wasn’t paid. Feeling a little better, she came in, but by early evening was so ill she was taken to an emergency room, couldn’t work for two days, and was docked more pay plus demerits.

She already had three for taking time off to care for her sick mother and contracting the flu. Disciplinary action follows after six. It’s called “Decision Day,” or “D-Day” on which employees must write an essay on why they like working at Wal-Mart, why they should keep their job, and how they’ll improve their future performance. Based on their comments, they’re either retained or fired, but if kept, they’re placed on probation for a full year during which firing follows the slightest infraction.

Nampa supercenter employees call it “cleaning out,” when workers are fired for any reason — minor infractions, slow traffic, firing full-time staff for cheap part-time ones or temps.

One worker was fired for accumulating flu-related demerits. On November 6, 2009, a Wal-Mart spokesperson told ABC’s Good Morning America:

“Wal-Mart will not fire any worker for having Swine Flu.”

Workers tell a different story. So does Global Exchange.org, saying the company leads “the race to the bottom” by its unfair labor practices:

– half of their employees get no health insurance, and those with it pay a large percentage of the cost and receive too little; and

– the company has a long, disturbing record of worker abuse, including forced overtime, some off-the-clock, illegal child and undocumented worker labor, and relentless union-busting; as a result, Wal-Mart faces numerous suits over unpaid overtime, denial of meal and rest breaks, manipulating time and wage records to cut costs, employing minors during school hours, and the largest ever class action discrimination lawsuit, involving over 1.5 million present and former female employees, paid less and promoted less often than their male counterparts.

In December 2008, Wal-Mart agreed to pay at least $352 million and up to $640 million to settle 63 federal and state class-action lawsuits from present and former employees over pay and other issues. According to Professor Paul Secunda of Marquette’s School of Law, the company settled to avoid an even worse defeat, including what unionization might cost.

Overall, Wal-Mart treats employees punitively. They’re overworked, underpaid, (many below the federal poverty line), denied benefits, discriminated against, punished for the slightest infraction, and treated like wage slaves.

In addition, its operations are predatory, punitive, and destructive as local businesses can’t compete and go under, the result being lost jobs, broken lives, and harmed communities. Its also ruthless in pressuring global sweatshop suppliers for low prices, all the worse because the company wields such enormous power.

Study Exposes the Dark Side of Worker Exploitation in America’s Three Largest Cities

From January to August 2008, the Center for Urban Economic Development, the National Employment Law Project, and the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment exposed the dark side of workforce exploitation in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — revealing practices common throughout America, especially during the global economic crisis making workers more vulnerable and eager for any job.

Their findings documented flagrant workplace violations, core protections most Americans take for granted, including a guaranteed minimum wage, overtime pay, regular meal and other breaks, compensation for on-the-job injuries, and the right to bargain collectively. The study revealed:

  • below minimum wage pay;
  • unpaid overtime;
  • denial of meal and other breaks;
  • illegal pay deductions;
  • tip stealing from tipped workers;
  • illegal employer retaliation against workers demanding their rights or attempting to form a union; and
  • workers denied legal protection by being classified as independent contractors.

Most affected were workers in apparel and textile manufacturing, personal and repair services, and private household employment. Small companies were worse than larger ones. Hourly workers and those paid by company check were treated better than those getting a weekly wage or in cash. Immigrants, women, the foreign born, and others in vulnerable categories were most at risk, but all workers are affected to some extent.

The abuses documented are endemic in key industries throughout the country, and have a profound effect on workers, their families and communities, especially with true unemployment over 20% and increased job losses monthly during the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.

Low-wage worker rights are compromised across the board — in jobs ranging from agriculture, meat and poultry processing, hotels and restaurants, retailing, nursing homes, day care centers, and residential construction in every city where exploitive day labor hiring exist. American workers face a system where business is empowered, their rights are eroding, and government is their enemy, not ally.

Sweatshops in Developing Countries

Abroad, exploitation is endemic in agriculture, mines, and factories producing garments, shoes, rugs, toys, chocolate, and other products. The same abuses are common — 60-80 hour workweeks, sub-poverty wages as low as pennies an hour, and no benefits in hazardous environments. Workers are harassed, intimidated, forced to work overtime, prevented from organizing, and fired if they complain.

Global sweatshops are mostly in Asia, Central and South America employing tens of millions of workers. It’s also a children’s issue as the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that 250 million between the ages of 5-14 work in developing countries — 61% in Asia, 32% in Africa and 7% in Latin America, but scattered numbers show up everywhere. Many are forced to work, at times abducted, work for less pay than adults, and are denied an education and normal childhood. Worse still, some are confined, brutally exploited, beaten, and sexually abused with no one looking out for their welfare.

National Labor Committee (NLC) Sweatshop Report on a China Factory

On February 10, 2009, Jason Chen headlined, “Your Keyboards May Have Been Made in Appalling Conditions,” then explained that Microsoft, IBM, Dell, Lenovo, and HP keyboards likely were made under horrific working conditions at a Meitai Dongguan City, China factory.

“Workers are prohibited from talking, listening to music, raising their heads, putting their hands in their pockets.” They’re fined for being one minute late, not trimming their fingernails, and for stepping on the grass. They’re searched on entering or leaving the facility, and anyone handing out flyers or discussing working conditions with outsiders are fired.

The assembly line never stops, so workers needing bathroom breaks must wait for the scheduled time. Overtime is mandatory, “with 12-hour shifts seven days a week and an average of two days off a month.” Anyone taking Sunday off is docked two and a half days’ pay. Including unpaid overtime, workers average up to 81 hours a week on site for a 74 workweek, including 34 hours of overtime, 318% above China’s legal limit.

Their base pay is 64 cents an hour, way below their basic needs, and after deductions for “primitive room and board,” take-home wages are 41 cents an hour. For 75 hours a week, including overtime, it comes to $57.19 or 76 cents an hour. Routinely, workers are cheated of up to 19% of pay due them.

They’re also docked two hours wages for “not lining up correctly while punching time cards or at the cafeteria,” 4 and a half hours for taking personal phone calls, not working “diligently,” raising their head to look around, putting personal possessions on their work desk, listening to the radio, “not parking bicycles according to company regulations,” riding them at the facility not according to company rules, and returning to dorms after curfew.

They’re penalized seven hours wages for switching beds without permission, one and a half day’s pay for arriving over one hour late, riding the elevator without permission, using dorm electricity without permission, using company phones for personal calls, producing low quality, socializing with other employees during working hours, entering or leaving the factory without being inspected, or treating supervisors “with an arrogant attitude.”

They lose three days’ pay for leaving their workstation without permission, putting up notices or handing out flyers, or “revealing confidential company or production-related information.”

They’re fired for violating labor discipline, participating in prohibited groups (such as unions, human or civil rights organizations, or non-sanctioned religious ones), not observing government regulations on stopping work, slowing it down, or encouraging others to do it, missing three days work, disobeying China’s one-child policy or company rules, causing trouble, or colluding in prohibited behavior.

NLC Report on Jordan Sweatshop

On July 24, 2009, an NLC report headlined, “US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement Stumbles,” citing “human trafficking, abuse, forced overtime, primitive dorm conditions, imprisonment and forcible deportations of foreign guest workers at” Jordan’s Musa Garment factory, owned by two Israeli businessmen, Jack Braun and Moshe Cohen.

About 209 workers are employed, included 181 foreign guest workers, 132 from Bangladesh and 49 from India. NLC explains the following abuses:

(1) Human trafficking

On arrival, foreign guest workers are illegally stripped of their passports for as long as three or more years, despite repeated pleas to return them.

(2) Primitive dorm conditions

As many as 10 workers live in small 12 x 14 rooms, sleeping on double-level bug-infested bunk beds. There’s no shower. Water is available only one or two hours a night. Forced to conserve it, workers use small plastic buckets for morning sponge baths. It’s not potable. Bathrooms are filthy and have no doors or lights.

The roof leaks and shoddy electrical system wiring frequently shorts out. With no proper kitchen, workers cook in their rooms. No heat or hot water is provided despite winter temperatures as low as freezing. They have to use their own money for portable heaters, and anyone complaining is threatened or beaten.

(3) Substandard food

Company-provided food is half cooked, raw on the inside, tasting terrible, and inadequate. Breakfast is a piece of pita bread and tea. Three times a week, they get an egg. Lunch is small portions of fish, beef, chicken or eggs with rice. Dinner is vegetables and rice. Amounts are so inadequate, workers have to supplement with their own.

(4) Forced overtime and seven-day workweeks

After the onset of global economic crisis, working hours have been from 7:30AM to 4:00 or 4:30PM with Fridays off. However, before December 2008, they worked up to 13 and a half hours daily from 7:30AM up to 9:00PM seven days a week. Overtime was obligatory, and missing a shift resulted in two or three days pay docked. Including mandatory overtime, workers earned from $211-$268 a month.

Most Jordanians won’t work in garment factories, so tens of thousands of guest workers are recruited. They endure illegal abuses, but put up with them to support their families at home.

(5) Failure to communicate

The plant manager is Palestinian. Supervisors are Bangladeshi. They earn four times worker rates, and are told to drive them as hard as possible as well as spy on and control them.

One incident was over worker complaints about lack of water. Supervisor Mr. Rezaul mocked them, saying he’d cut of their penises if they kept complaining. Around the same time, supervisor Mr. Mosharraf slapped a woman very hard in the face for not meeting her quota. Anger was building for months. A work stoppage followed, after which 10-12 policemen entered the factory, threatened the workers and said either work or be handcuffed and imprisoned. The incident continued for days, including more threats and beatings, finally getting about 50 police to charge the dorm, arrest and imprison 24 workers, including 10 men and 14 women.

Six were held for over a week, then forcibly deported without their personal belongings. The others were released. While in prison, they were beaten, had no mattresses, no pillows, little food, and unsafe drinking water. The six deported had worked in Jordan for up to five years with no complaints against them.

Six other Musa workers were imprisoned in unknown locations. Factory conditions remain deplorable, and workers are threatened with imprisonment if they fail to meet mandatory production goals, called excessive and impossible to achieve. As a result, they’re terrified since management targets the most outspoken.

After the US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement took effect in December 2001, Jordanian exports to America rose 2,000 percent, the result of virtually no worker protections, making them easily exploitable.

NLC Report on Bangladesh Sweatshop: The Kabir Steel Yard, Chittagong

In September 2009, an NLC report was titled, “Where Ships and Workers Go To Die: Shipbreaking in Bangladesh & The Failure of Global Institutions to Protect Worker Rights.” NLC Executive Director Charles Kernaghan wrote a preface saying “If There Is a Hell on Earth, This Is It,” calling the Kabir site “one of the strangest, most striking and frightening (ones) in the world.”

About 30,000 workers dismantle enormous decommissioned tanker ships — 20 stories high weighing 25 million pounds, up to 1,000 feet long, and from 95-164 feet wide. They perform the world’s most hazardous jobs 12 hours a day, seven days a week for 22-32 cents an hour “handling and breathing in dangerous toxic waste and with no safeguards whatsoever and under conditions that violate every local and international labor law.” Serious injuries happen daily, in some cases paralyzing, for others deaths every three or four weeks. Over the past 30 years, as many as 2,000 have been killed. Life is cheap, and no one cares.

Employing mostly young men, but also children as young as 11, the operation has been ongoing for over 30 years under horrific conditions. Workers use hammers to break up 15,000 pounds of asbestos in each ship, then dump it on the sand to wash away.

Four to six of them share primitive rooms, often sleeping on a filthy concrete floor. No one can afford a mattress. Roofs leak so, on rainy nights, they have to sit up covering themselves with plastic sheets. Their shower is a hand water pump. They deserve better and don’t ask for much — 60 cents an hour, legal overtime wages, one day a week off, sick days, holidays, and healthcare to cover job injuries.

On September 5, 2009, a worker was burned to death breaking apart a South Korean tanker. Another is in critical condition, and three more were seriously burned when their blowtorches struck a gas tank that exploded, engulfing them in flames.

They’re often paralyzed or crushed to death by falling metal plates. On July 14, 2008, a 13-year old child was killed when a large iron one struck his head. Accidents like these aren’t reported, and investigations are never held.

On average, each ship contains about 15,000 pounds of asbestos and 10-100 tons of lead paint. As a result, workers are exposed to toxins from asbestos, lead, PCBs, mercury, arsenic, dioxins, cadmium, solvents, black oil residues and carcinogenic fumes from melting metal and lead paint. In addition, Bangladesh beaches, ocean, and fishing villages sustain heavy environmental contamination.

Helpers, often children, go barefoot or wear flip flops, use hammers to break apart asbestos, then shovel it into bags to dump in the sand. The most rudimentary protective gear is absent. Cutters using blowtorches wear sunglasses, not protective goggles; baseball caps, not hardhats; dirty bandanas around their noses and mouths, not respiratory masks; and two sets of shirts, not welders’ vests, hoping not to get burned but they do daily.

All International Labor Organization (ILO) and Bangladesh labor laws are blatantly violated. Anyone asking for proper wages is immediately fired. Workers are assured of early deaths because conditions haven’t changed in over 30 years.

A dead worker is worth $1,400. On August 12, 2008, a worker was crushed by a metal plate when a cable holding it up snapped. Another worker’s leg was so badly hurt, it was amputated. A third one’s hand was crushed. It’s now paralyzed. In vain, the dead man’s mother begged for help with burial expenses. Only after a long struggle and legal aid did she get 100,000 taka, $1,453, a cheap price for a life.

After sustaining serious injuries, another worker said:

I was struck and knocked down to the ground. I was unconscious. I was admitted to the Chittagong Al Sattar Hospital….My backbone is broken and my head was badly injured. Now my bodily organs are not functioning. I feel nothing in my chest or back… I cannot feel my stomach… I wish I could move like I did before.

He demanded justice for his injuries, and doctors said he had a chance with proper treatment. Surgery, however, would cost 750,000 taka, $10,900, a cost the shipyard wouldn’t pay. Instead, they let him rot in bed with no end in sight for his misery.

Another worker said: “We are fighting with death always. This is not work. This is a place of punishment and death….We can’t afford food, so how are we going to see a doctor and purchase medicines.”

Others said work in the shipyard “is to invite death. Here a dog is more important than a human being,” easily replaced. “After a cow ploughs for one or two hours, they have to be fed. But not us. We have to work 12-14 hours with nothing.”

Workers aren’t united. They have no union. They can’t bargain. If they try to organize, they’ll be fired and replaced. “What the owner says is the law…. We work. We eat. We sleep. We don’t have any life.”

Inside ships, it’s hot. “Very hot. We are sweating. Everyone is soaked.” They often work on “floating stairs,” bamboo rope ladders. It’s “very risky.” They hang on with one hand and operate a blowtorch with the other and use their teeth to turn liquid gas and oxygen valves on and off.

A leading Bangladeshi attorney, Syeda Rizwana Hasan, said he hadn’t:

come across another sector where every two weeks a minimum of one person is dying and there is no labour unrest. These workers are dying, getting cancer, getting skin diseases; they are also losing their hands and legs. After working in the ship breaking yards for a few years, their bodies are in such a horrible condition that they can barely do any other form of labour. It’s essentially a crippling way of life.

NLC calls the world “a desperate place for the poor.” Global trade rules don’t protect them. They struggle to keep jobs they know will harm or kill them because of no choice. How else can they support their families.

Stephen Lendman