In function of the elections in Belgium this year, every party that participate in the elections try to give his « unique » profile in the media, to win as much votes as possible.
In KNACK nr 7 of 11 februari 2008 (KNACK is a weekly as TIME, or NEWSWEEK) Peter Mertens the actual president of the WPB (PVDA in dutch, PTB in French) is telling in what the WPB differs with other « left » parties:
« Only we put the system into discussion .. We have stated again clearly that we are e Marxist party and that we defend a socialist society. But from now on, we will do this by involving as much as possible people in concrete projects and points of struggle. »
On a meeting I asked Jo Cottenier (also national cadre of the WPB) if the party should not tell now clearly to the people that capitalism offers no more future to humanity, that man has to tear it down and replace it by a socialist plan economy, he said:
« That is dogmatic. You have to do proposals that break with the capitalist logic, that put the people into struggle because those proposals are connected to the things that are at the moment concerning the people. You can believe it or not, but we are discussing also about the necessity of socialism individually with our contacts in the enterprises and the union. »
So is the WPB Marxist and revolutionary? (and so the other « left » parties participating in the elections not?)
Let see if the WPB makes really the difference!
On the website pvda.be on 10 februrari, Joris Van Gorp, responsible of the WPB of the province Antwerp proposed the following to the workers of GM-Antwerp (I am curious what the WPB of the province Limbourg will propose to the workers of FORD and the WPB of Brussels to the workers of AUDI….):
« Why not fighting for a GM-Euro-Car, taken over by Europe, by doing an offer by the European Union on GM-Europe to the share-holders of GM? Because then, you will sit to the table were the decisions are made to defend employment in a nationalised GM-Euro-Car under the control of the European Union.
A nationalised GM-EuroCar, under control of the European Union, can spread the decrease of the production over all the European production sites and combine this with decrease of the work-time or the organising of the temporary unemployment (…) Only in this way the money of the community can really be used for conserving employment an a meaningful production.
A nationalised enterprise offers advantages. Now environment-friendly solutions are not developed, because of the hunt on profit. In a nationalised enterprise the research can be planned in this direction.
Private capital may not have the leadership in this nationalised enterprise. There has to come a new management being put under control of the workers and their unions and of the people. These new managers have to be competent that have shown their capabilities already in the production sites of GM. The European unions have to have decision -power in putting in charge of these managers. And it has to be possible to fire these managers when they are not capable.
A GM-EuroCar is not the solution out of the crisis in the car production, nor of the chaos that is created by the market-economy and the hunt on profit. Therefore another economy is needed and a socialist society.
The actual overcapacity in the car-production is a consequence of the insane competition between the car-producers. A GM-EuroCar would invest no more in more production-capacity. In this way a nationalised enterprise offers already a part of the solution of the overcapacity. And above all will a nationalisation stimulate the discussion about another look on car-industry that is needing planning more than ever, a stricter control of the capacity, the development of a energy-saving project of the transport problem in our society. »
So, Joris is reasoning as follows: if there is sufficient struggle developing that will be continuing until al the conditions are fulfilled (decision-power of the unions by hiring new managers, that can also be fired and sitting to the decision-table of the unions for the spreading of the decrease of the production, the organising of the decrease of the work-time and the temporary unemployment to get rid of the overcapacity ….) the jobs and the salaries can be guaranteed..
This depends, of course, also of how this decrease of work-time (with of without preservation of salary -and so an adaptation of the hourly salary) and how temporary unemployment (with or without subsidy - of course paid by the enterpise otherwise paid by your own paid taxes - to 100% of your salary, so in fact your salary paid for NOT working) is organised.
But the overcapacity, so Joris had to admit, will hereby not be ended; although « a GM-EuroCar can offer a serious contribution to a solution ». Perhaps there has first to be struggled for Euro-Ford and Euro-Audi? …..and perhaps also for Euro-Renault and Euro-Peugeot and what ever more?
Joris recognised that « for a real solution for the overcapacity there is a struggle needed for another economy and a socialist society ».
Why then not propagating this to the workers and making them conscious to struggle for « another economy and a socialist society », …. That is Joris not mentioning to us.
Finally, Joris is misleading the workers!
Because even when the result of the struggle of the workers by GM-Antwerp (or should it be by the whole GM-Europe?) should be, the installing of a European state-enterprise (« under the control of the European Union » what should be in heavens name the meaning of this?) INCLUDED all the put forward conditions, then it would be the result of a struggle that on a certain moment gets the character of a struggle against the capitalist order in Europe itself!
ONLY THEN the European capitalists would « allow » such a « nationalisation » (a rather unclear formulation because is Joris now estimating that it is the BELGIAN (member-)state once has to be overthrown or is the European Union the actual capitalist state-apparatus?). So in fact this would be « allowed » on the moment that the workers of Europe themselves are putting the struggle for « another economy and a socialist society » on the agenda. That will be however not the work of Joris of the WPB.
« Nationalising » only the car-assemblage of only 1 mark: GM?
And, IS it really a solution to put the assemblage of cars of 1 mark in a « nationalised » ( but European?)company «under the control of the European Union»?
What with al the companies and factories for the production of all kinds of interim-products, machineries and base-products for the car production, lying stream upwards: the plastic- and metal producing facilities, the plastic- and metal transforming facilities, the chemical-industries (base products for paint, glue, plastic, refining of oil,…), the electronics industry, steel factories, the energy producing and energy distributing industry,…..
In this imperialist world, the production of all kind of end products (so also that of CARS) is a SOCIAL production (where for the production of one type of products, hundreds of thousands workers are involved in production lines that are chained one to another.
And when there is an overcapacity of cars, it exist in ALL the marks together (and not alone at GM) and in the WHOLE production-chain from resources, over interim products until in the assemblage itself. ALSO there will be closures, job-losses, salary-decrease, deterioration of working conditions and an increase of exploitation level.
And Joris, is the solution there also « nationalisation under the control of the European Union"?
And what is the meaning of « nationalisation under control of the European Union »?
The European Union is the state apparatus in service of the big monopolies. Following THEIR orders the European Union is doing a policy of privatisation, dismantling all social security and al kinds of alternative income (as pension) and increasing the level of exploitation for all the workers of Europe.
The most institutions of the European Union are not chosen but installed. The only institution for which there are organised elections (and we don’t argue now if they are real democratic)is the European parliament. And that has just a consulting function.
« Yes but, the difference with other proposals of nationalisation are the decisive supplementary conditions », I can hear Joris saying..
So the workers has to continue the struggle for that « nationalisation under control of the European Union » until all conditions are fulfilled (control of the unions by the installing of the new management, etc….)
Joris wants to prove to be a real Marxist with « a nationalisation can stimulate the discussion about another view on the car industry that needs more then ever, planning, a stricter control on the capacity, the development of energy saving models and an alternative handling the transport problem in our society ».
Sorry for him! Now Joris is showing his LACK of Marxist view about the essential DIFFERENCES between an economy based on the capitalist production system and a socialist plan economy and why Marxists just are saying that the capitalist production system can have NO planning, but is producing in chaos and in an anarchist way. The capitalist production system is for example ht highest possible form of COMMODITY-production and is the socialist plan-economy the transformation to a production in function of NEEDS.
How can « the discussion be stimulated » parting from car assemblage? The production of cars is a typical « capitalist answer »to the need in the society for mobility; namely a safe, comforting and large car for al the persons who CAN PAY IT(and the more you can pay the more safety, comport, space, and faster)
But why then is not put on the agenda the « nationalisation under control of the European Union » of al the European transport companies (all the already PRIVATISED companies of all kind of public transport) to produce a « mobility-solution »that is NOT depending of the amount of a individual income?
But Peter Mertens says in KNACK nr 7: « that is not our program of demands today! »
GM-EuroCar, a « left » variation of a reformist plan
In fact Joris is producing a « left » variation of a reformist proposal to come to an agreement with a part of the bourgeoisie to instal a European public enterprise for the production of an European car.
The reformists want to advice the owners of GM to sell the European part to the European authorities « now it has still a certain value » and so the owners will get a still good price for it.
The European Union can now more be accused of giving a lot of money « to the support of a private company » because they will be the owner themselves.
The reformists are willingly to accept a far going corporatism. Perhaps in the form of « co-managing » as it exists in
Germany?
The European Union can then fully implement her policy of increasing the level of exploitation in « her own company ». So it is possible to produce a car at « a very competitive price »….. Maybe even the workers that will produce the GMEurocar can buy it themselves?
This plan the reformist have copied from Hitler with is plan to produce ….. The Volkswagen!
So the Plan Joris Van Gorp is just as Marxist and revolutionary as was the Plan Henri De Man (of the Belgian social-democratic party) in the thirties…
And Henri De Man propagated collaboration with the German occupation in 1940....What will be de evolution of Joris Van Gorp?
Allthough the socalled “marxist” plan of Joris is a collective discussed plan to which the different WPB-members working in GM-Antwerp wil have participated, It is a point of view of the whole PTB. I have to admitted that my analyse is a work of one individual and I am not organised in a “revolutionary” organisation that the WPB pretend to be.
But I think that I have a more real marxist approach. You can read it here.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten